During a murderous attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French publication that specializes in satire, seven staff members were killed along with others in the building and police officers. Specifically targeted were political cartoonists who had created satirical cartoons of, among others, the founder of Islam, Mohammed. Four more were killed at a grocery store in the Jewish Quarter of Paris, targeted because of their Jewish ancestry and beliefs. Another policewoman was also killed in a related incident, which made a total of seventeen people, not including the three shooters who were also, finally, killed by police. (Lori Hinnant and Angela Charlton, “French Police Detain 9 in Massive Hunt for 2 Suspects,” Associated Press News at APNews.MyWay.com, January 8, 2015.)

Violence, on this scale and with such obvious malice aforethought targets those who hold a differing, even derogatory opinion of a religious figure or idea. This is a violation of the concept of freedom of expression as we know it. Should this change the way we express ourselves? 

France and the United States both traversed the painful valley of revolution at approximately the same time in the 1770’s through the 1790’s. The Republic of France went through many years of tumultuous societal turmoil and finally, in the nineteenth century, emerged with a republic form of government that, at its core, valued the right to express one’s opinions freely. For the United States the result was a nation with governing documents that secured the rights of freedom of religion and of expression, among others. Through the decades, despite struggling with how much expression is allowed, the example set by these two republics has made a precedent for the world, and we enjoy many of our enduring freedoms as a result.

While not dismissing the obvious motivations of these murders, religious hatred and violent anti-Semitism, let’s take a closer look at how we wield our freedom to express our beliefs. Certainly, other’s opinions should be respected, no matter how contrary those opinions may seem, but as true Christians, should we be inflammatory in the way we express our beliefs and antagonistic of the beliefs of others, even if we know them to be false?

The answer is yes…and no.

The book of Ecclesiastes makes a very simple statement, “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven…,” followed later by this, “A time to keep silence, And a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, Ecclesiastes 3:7, NKJV). There is a time to speak, and sometimes to speak with absolute firmness, even with button-pushing sarcasm. Our example: Jesus Christ.

Just before his death by crucifixion, Christ began to push the buttons of the religious leaders in Judea at that time. They were the Pharisees and Sadducees, who had departed from the core of God’s Law by, in the case of the former, adding to it, and the latter, by taking away from it. They were on the fringes of belief and were oppressing those they were leading. Christ knew that His words would make them angry, and in the case of the Pharisees, angry enough to have Him killed.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves… Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness…” (Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:27).

These were highly inflammatory words, and Christ was justified in using them because they also happened to be true. Could He have used a softer approach? Certainly, and He does so at the end of the chapter when He laments His beloved city of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39). However, at this time anger and sarcasm were necessary. Christ knew His role and also knew that the leaders of the time had murder in their hearts, which needed to be visible for all to see, and as a result, He would die. And He had to, for the forgiveness of the sins of all human beings.

What about us? Does this give us free reign to run around antagonizing others of different beliefs simply because Christ did so at one point in His work? As a rule, no.

“…we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ…” (Ephesians 4:14-15, emphasis added).

The old saying goes, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” A loving approach is more palatable than a harsh, angry one. As a rule, this should be our approach to how we treat others in the Body of Christ, but also, by extension, those God may be calling in the world.

However, kindness doesn’t equal weakness. There is a time to be respectful, but firm about our beliefs and how we express them to others. The good thing is that we can call on God at any time to guide our response to others, and benefit from His wisdom, not just our own.

There is no justification for the attacks in France against the unarmed, innocent people who died simply because someone disagreed with their opinion or their ancestry. Let’s take time to digest and understand the lessons from this tragedy (and others, like the recent slaughter in the Nigerian town of Baga and the ongoing murders in Syria and Iraq), so that those lives, also, aren’t lost in vain.