There have been volumes written against making the gospel more palatable for those who are “seekers”, whatever that means, and contextualizing the gospel, for which there are many definitions.

I think it can be narrowed down to this:

1 Corinthians 1:18 NASB
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I would gather that seeker-sensitive preachers and evangelists don’t want to make the the gospel sound like foolishness. But if we make it more palatable and use logic and worldly wisdom so that people will accept it on an intellectual level without truly believing, they are putting some of them on rocky soil right from the start. Is that what we want to do to people?

2 Peter 2:21 NRSV
For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them.

Jesus and Paul didn’t make it easy enter the kingdom. (Matt 7:13-14, Matt 19:21-22)

Regarding the cross as foolishness, here are some quotes from commentators:

Longenecker, Galatians:

Today, after almost two millennia of the cross as a sacred symbol, it is difficult for Christians to appreciate the repugnance and horror with which the cross was viewed among both Jews and Gentiles in the first century. The only things comparable in our day would be venerating an electric chair or wearing a hangman’s noose around our necks as a symbol of our religious devotion. Indeed, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1:23, the proclamation of ‘Christ crucified’ was ‘a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.’

Garland, 1 Corinthians:

He [Paul] does not say that he preached the resurrected Christ, but the crucified Christ. Crucifixion and resurrection belong together as part of the gospel story (1 Cor 15:3-5), but the cross was repugnant to ancient sensibilities and assailed the world’s self-centeredness and self-destructive ways. It was not yet the ‘old rugged cross’ sentimentalized in hymns, embalmed in stained-glass windows, perched on marble altars, or fashioned into gold charms.

Christianity was cradled in what looks like disastrous defeat, and the unspeakable stigma of the cross exposed the preacher of this message to woeful contempt. Paul, however, did not refer to Jesus’ death with embarrassment or skip over the awkward facts.

…the message of the cross is an antidote to human self-glorification.

Paul left…yielding, to the persuasion of the Spirit.

Galatians

Galatians 1:11-12
For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (NRSV)

Quoting Longenecker in his commentary on Galatians:

…as for Gentiles being accepted by God and living as Christians apart from the regulations of the Mosaic law–and so, as for the legitimacy of a Gentile mission apart from the Jewish law–Paul saw this as a ‘mystery’ enigmatically rooted in the prophetic Scriptures but now made known to him by revelation (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:2-10; Col 1:26-27), and so uniquely his.

…what they [the Judaizers]…opposed were the implications Paul drew from these confessions for a law-free gospel among Gentiles. Paul, however, saw in the proclamation of full salvation in Christ the attendant truth of acceptance and life for Gentiles apart from the Mosaic law. This is what he calls ‘the gospel I preached to you’ or ‘my gospel’ (Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25; see also 2 Tim 2:8; and ‘our gospel’ at 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:14).

The Judaizers (those seeking to have those in Galatia circumcised and completing their salvation by obeying the law) claimed that Paul didn’t have the authority to preach his gospel and also that he initially received his teaching from the “real” apostles in Jerusalem as opposed to direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days;

Although Paul did see Peter (Cephas) for 15 days, as Longenecker says with a bit of humor:

Certainly their fifteen days together were not spent ‘talking about the weather.’ They discussed, without a doubt, matters pertaining to their common commitment to Christ. And it is not beyond the range of reasonable probability to believe that such discussions included Peter’s accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and that from such accounts Paul learned much. But to learn about the details of Jesus’ earthly life from Peter and to be subordinate to or dependent on Peter for his apostleship and Gentile mission are clearly quite different matters. Paul is willing to acknowledge the former, but he is adamant in his rejection of the latter.

Paul is not bragging or trying to be a renegade apostle going off on his own. He is only defending the authority to preach the gospel given him and its authenticity.

This is well illustrated in Ephesians (also cited by Longenecker above). O’Brien points out that the words given/gift and grace are mentioned three times each in this passage for emphasis:

Ephesians 3:2-8
for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given me by the working of his power. Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ,

There are plenty of blogs and message board posts of Christians criticizing each other. Some are legitimately pointing out false teachers who are knowingly or unknowingly leading others astray. Some are pointing out teachings that are unscriptural. But others are just Christians calling other Christians names and treating each other in a disrespectful way.

Sometimes we should just let it go:

Romans 14:8-10
For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;

Sometimes we need to act differently:

‘Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive and harsh,’ Mr. Keller says. ‘Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding—as Christ was.’

–Tim Keller

By the way, he is one of the people who is often maligned among certain groups of people. I don’t know enough of him to have an opinion.

I thought I would get together just a few Scripture references specifically dealing with respect. This is a reminder to myself as much as anyone else.

Romans 12:10
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Romans 12:16-18
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

Titus 3:2
to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

James 2:12-13
So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

1 Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

Most translations of Psalm 119:92 go something like this:

If your law had not been my delight,
I would have perished in my affliction. (TNIV)

To me the word perish means to pass away, die a physical death, be destroyed etc.

Matthew Henry says:

He was in affliction, and ready to perish in his affliction, not likely to die, so much as likely to despair; he was ready to give up all for gone, and to look upon himself as cut off from God’s sight; he therefore admires the goodness of God to him, that he had not perished, that he kept the possession of his own soul, and was not driven out of his wits by his troubles, but especially that he was enabled to keep close to his God and was not driven off from his religion by them.

John Gill says:

must have perished, not eternally, but as to his comforts: his heart would have fainted in him, and he would have sunk under the weight of the affliction, had it not been for the relief he had from the word of God, the doctrines and promises of it;

So what is the only translation I found that conveys the meaning of this verse to me?

If your revelation hadn’t delighted me so,
I would have given up when the hard times came.
Psalm 119:92 The Message

I’ll just say that I don’t like The Message a lot, to put it in my vernacular. I’ve never seen a single verse or passage quoted that I liked until now. This is the only translation I found that conveys the meaning to me. Let’s just keep this between you and me. I know as of now there are about 6.7 trillion people who don’t read this blog.

For more reading:
C.H. Spurgeons’s The Treasury of David