The sermon 'Dealing with Defamation' by Peter Allison discusses the trial of Paul before Felix as recorded in Acts 24, highlighting Paul's response to defamation. Paul, accused of inciting a riot, defends himself with patience, competence, and boldness, turning the trial into an opportunity to present the Gospel. He demonstrates wisdom by choosing the right moments to defend himself and by respecting the court's authority while maintaining his innocence. The sermon draws parallels with Franklin Graham's efforts to evangelize in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, despite facing significant challenges. Graham's actions highlight the creative and bold methods used to spread the Gospel under restrictive conditions. The sermon encourages believers to handle defamation with grace and to seize opportunities to share their faith, emphasizing the importance of demeanor, truthfulness, and readiness to defend one's beliefs in the face of opposition.

Acts chapter 24. It's in the middle of Paul's trial before Felix. Turtullus has given his opening statement and brought his case to the court, before the court, and we pick up in verse 10 where Paul is given the chance to bring His side. Hear God's word. Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered, Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than 12 days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship.

And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone, nor inciting the crowd, neither in the synagogues or in the city, nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. I have hope in God which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience, without offense, toward God and men. Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult.

They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me. Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council. Unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am being judged by you this day." May the Lord give us understanding that we may know His testimonies. Heavenly Father, please seal this word to our hearts this morning. May we be instructed by it, sanctified and enabled to walk more faithfully.

I pray that you would sanctify this vessel of clay that the riches of your grace might be opened to us this morning. In Jesus' name, Amen. Well, Saudi Arabia has historically been one of the harder nations to evangelize because of its strict enforcement of Muslim Sharia laws, forbidding conversion and any evangelization by Christians. And when the US military invaded Iraq some 30 years ago, Franklin Graham was wondering how our military presence there could be leveraged to introduce the Gospel to them. And as he was on his way to speak at a conference, he had read a Dear Abby column in which she urged soldiers to send letters of encouragement to soldiers.

And she suggested that they just address those letters to any service member, Operation Desert Storm, APO, New York, Army Post Office, New York. And then just put Operation Dear Abby for the return address. And apparently there were so many letters being sent that they had to use a 747 to carry them over there. And so that gave Franklin Graham a neat idea. With that volume of mail, he figured there was no way the Saudi censors could screen it all.

And so he printed up 200, 000, or ordered 200, 000 gospel tracts in Arabic to be able to distribute to churches to put in their letters and when they delivered their tracts a few weeks later they actually got closer to a million tracks and he called the publisher who merely replied to him, well if you can distribute 200, 000 you can probably get rid of a million just as easily, God bless you. So then in Christmas of 1990 he thought well why not send some care packages over there with Arabic New Testaments? So he printed up 30, 000 New Testaments and included a cassette tape of Christian songs by Marinatha Music, and then included in that little package a letter that read, Dear fellow American, now that you are in the Persian Gulf, you may find that you have some spare time. Don't waste it. Instead, why not try learning to read a little Arabic?

Enclosed is a copy of the New Testament in the Arabic language. You may want to get a Saudi friend to help you read it. We're very proud of you and we pray that God will protect you and bring you safely home to your loved ones What an ingenious way of getting and then they mailed these over army post offices. I thought what an ingenious way of getting the Gospel mailed into Saudi Arabia at government expense, and it's all constitutionally legitimate, because they have a constitutional authority for post offices. Now Franklin never dreamed that his little evangelistic idea would reach General Schwarzkopf.

So he was stunned one day to get a call from a colonel in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. And when he answered the phone, the voice on the other end said, this is colonel so-and-so, and I'm calling from Saudi Arabia. General Schwarzkopf asked me to speak with you. There's a lot of concern over here about what you're doing by sending these New Testaments. Don't you realize you are putting American men and women in harm's way." And so Franklin replied, Sir, with all due respect, I'm not putting anybody in harm's way.

Saddam Hussein's putting a lot of men and women in harm's way. Our government is putting a lot of men and women in harm's way. I didn't start the problems over there. But don't you understand the Saudis' concern about religious pollution in their country?" The colonel replied. After all, we're here to protect the Saudis, and they are an Islamic nation, not Christian.

We as chaplains are not here to evangelize. We are here to provide for the spiritual needs of our men and women in uniform, and our responsibility is to them only. Period. Do you understand that Mr. Graham?" Franklin replied, Colonel, I appreciate that.

Everyone in this country, not everyone, but probably most, everyone in this country is backing and supporting our men and women in uniform, and we're proud of you. But I'm going to be honest with you, sir. The religious unfairness has upset me and a lot of others in America. Our men and women are being asked to put their lives on the line, possibly spill their blood to protect the oil over there, and you, a chaplain, can't even wear your cross in public. The Saudis want our blood, but not what we believe in.

But Mr. Graham, you have to understand their perspective. Sir, The cross of Jesus Christ is what made America great. America was built on the Christian faith of our ancestors. It ticks me off that the Saudis are pressuring our military to restrict our religious expression.

And it doesn't sit well with the American people either. Franklin said, after I finished, a hush fell over the line. The colonel finally said, I understand what you're trying to do. I'm an evangelical too, but I'm under orders." Franklin interrupted, "'So am I, sir. Orders from the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and make disciples of every nation.'" The colonel paused again.

"'I understand, ' he said. "'I guess you might as well know some of the results of your work.'" And he began sharing stories of spiritual activities among our soldiers, the baptisms and foxholes and so forth. In his autobiography, General Schwarzkopf actually mentioned this effort in a derogatory way. He told a case of an example where they were overly concerned about some religious expression that turned out to not be over there at all, it was in America. And then he writes this in his book, he said, The Saudi concern about religious pollution seemed overblown to me, but understandable.

And on a few occasions, I agreed they really did have a gripe. There was a fundamentalist Christian group in North Carolina called Samaritan's Purse that had the bright idea of sending unsolicited New Testaments in Arabic to our troops." He went on to quote the enclosed letter. And he goes on, One day Khalid, that's his counterpart on the Iraqi side, Handed me a copy. What's all this about? He asked mildly.

And this time he didn't need to protest. He knew how dismayed I'd be. Well, I didn't tell that just for that. There's more to this story. The resistance didn't end there.

Franklin got a call from the U.S. Postal Inspector's Office calling to tell him he had broken the law. And as Franklin remembers it, his heart began to pound and he finally stammered, What are you talking about? Sir, you have been sending Bibles and religious material to Saudi Arabia. We have had strict instructions that religious material, alcohol, and pornographic literature cannot be sent to Saudi Arabia.

And Franklin thought to himself, Bible, whiskey, and pornography all lumped together and he became angry. You say I've broken the law? Tell me, is it against the law to send the Bible through The mail? Yes it is. It is?

Well, it's against Syria law. Franklin replied, I knew you had me scared there for a minute. I don't live in Saudi Arabia. I live in the United States of America." Well, you see, Mr. Graham, you have to understand that we're in a wartime situation and he ranted on for a while that we couldn't send bibles or material through the mail if Saudi Arabia was the destination.

Sir, this is still America, Franklin repeated. Well, you'll be hearing from us, " he said. Franklin writes that after they hung up, he said, he thought, man, I'm in trouble now. He says, but I wasn't afraid. In fact, I felt pretty good about everything we'd done.

Apparently we'd upset some folks. And that implied that our Operation Desert Save was having an effect. And he had some other interactions with the post office, But they didn't try to prosecute. Today he probably would have been. I don't have time to read all the letters from service members telling how the Lord used that in their life, or how they were able to distribute the Bibles.

But he also received one other phone call from that colonel. He learned in that phone call that under orders from General Schwarzkopf to confiscate the Bibles and send them back to him, they had managed to confiscate about 100 Bibles. Franklin replied, I'm sorry to hear that, but of course inwardly he was rejoicing because they had sent over tens of thousands of Bibles. But the colonel went on to explain that he had met a construction worker over there who had set up a distribution system using KGB methods to insulate the members from knowing each other so that if they'd ever been caught, They wouldn't be able to divulge any other information beyond themselves. And that the Bibles were secretly getting into the hands of the Saudis.

And the Colonel said, Oh, and by the way Franklin, all those Testaments we confiscated to send back to you, well, with the war we somehow lost them." And Franklin wondered, are you telling me that the construction worker has them? And then this colonel said, do you have any more? And Franklin said, yes, we have several pallets. And the colonel said, well, if you get them to me, I'll see that they get to where they need to go. You see, the Iraqi war was a wicked thing for us to do.

But God used it to bring Bibles to this closed nation under the darkness of Islam. And He did it in a miraculously providential way using constitutionally legitimate government expense to do it. Now that doesn't justify the war. But it does show how the Lord can advance the gospel of His Kingdom even through the evil actions of wicked nations and the boldness of His people. And you see, in the same way, God used the wicked attempts of the Jews to kill Paul, to put Paul into Roman custody and therefore into Roman courts.

And in Roman courts, God gave Paul audiences with Roman kings and rulers. Audiences that he used to present the Gospel. Audiences that he could have never gotten, apart from being in custody in an inner room in court. And God used the Jews, the wicked actions of the Jews, to get Paul there to do that. And Paul boldly did exactly that.

As we go through Paul's defense of some very serious charges against him, one or two of which could have resulted in the death penalty, his defiling of the temple, his sedition against Caesar. Look for these things. Look for Paul's patient cheerfulness in the face of defamation. His patient, cheerful contentment in the face of defamation by these slanderous charges. Secondly, look for his competent defense.

He mounts a vigorous, bold, and very competent defense in court. And third, look for his boldness, his fearless boldness in bringing the Gospel to this very wicked, pagan, corrupt Roman ruler. Three things. First of all, Paul's patient contentment before the court. Most of us, I'm guessing, probably have never had to stand trial, at least for criminal charges, where our life was at stake or our liberty.

But if you have, you know that it can be stressful, to say the least. And most of us have probably endured some form of defamation at some point, and if you have experienced it, you know how stressful that can be and how natural it is to want to defend yourself and set the record straight. Maybe it's just your spouse has said something about you that you think is not quite fair or correct. And our first urge is to want to defend ourselves, to set the record straight, and correct what has put us in a bad light. And in the face of slanderous defamation, it's tempting to challenge accusations as soon as they are uttered, even to the point of interrupting someone.

But Paul has done two things, I think, very well in being taken into custody and falsely charged. First, he's shown wisdom in knowing when to defend himself and when not to. And that's a very important point. He's demonstrated great restraint and great wisdom in knowing when to speak and when not to. There's a time and a place to defend ourselves, And there's a time and a place to wait for the Lord to vindicate us if He chooses to do so.

And prudence is knowing when to do what. Proverbs 20-22 says, do not say, I will recompense evil. Wait for the Lord and He will save you. Wait for the Lord to vindicate your name. Non-Christians put that principle this way, wait for time to prove you right.

But you're waiting for the Lord. We're waiting for the Lord to vindicate us if He chooses to do so. But we can also err in refusing to defend ourselves at all, because sometimes obeying the Ninth Commandment requires that we mount a just and vigorous defense for our name and the truth. Question 145 of the larger catechism lists one of the sins forbidden in the 9th commandment as undue silence in a just cause and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves or a complaint to others. One of the charges that Isaiah brings against Israel in Isaiah 59 is no one calls for justice, nor does any plead for truth.

Nobody was willing to defend the truth or their good name. And that can be just as wrong. They see, Paul waits for the Lord. He waited until he faced a court of competent jurisdiction. Never once did he try to argue his case before the Kiliarch who arrested him or with the Jews who seized him.

He only argued when he was set in front of a competent court. And even then, notice that he's patient and waits. So here, don't waste time defending yourself when there is no court in place to adjudicate. Wait until you're in front of a competent court because any effort defending yourself when there's no competent court is just wasted. And I use the word court rather broadly to refer to anyone that has jurisdiction or to whom you're accountable.

So in that sense, parents would constitute a court for their children. Because you see, without a court in place, there's no chance for a verdict. There's no chance for a meaningful verdict because one, there's no accountability for what's being said. And secondly, there's no accountability or no ability to cross-examine the witnesses. And you see both of these things.

Accountability for what has been said and the ability to cross-examine the witnesses and the evidence is critical to reaching a just verdict. Without those two things, you can't. See, social media is definitely not a good place to mount a defense beyond correcting a few simple misconceptions. It's a waste of time because you don't have either of those things. Also, answering defamation outside of court accepts unnecessary accountability.

Just because somebody defames you doesn't mean you automatically need to defend yourself to them. Because when you do that, you're accepting accountability to them. And if you're not accountable to them, then don't do that. It's not wise. Also, answering defamation outside of a competent court gives undeserved credibility to the Bruns bringing it and it can give extra life to the charges themselves.

You see Proverbs 26.2 says, Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, so a curse without a cause will not alight. False charges without any cause will not alight, So ignore them. Don't give undeserved credibility to the people bringing them, or give extra life to the charges by trying to defend them. And if you don't answer a false charge, it will often just fall to the ground and be forgotten. And so Paul waits then until he's before a court of competent jurisdiction to bring a defense.

But secondly, Paul shows great patience and contentment even in the court and waiting until he's asked to speak. And Luke makes a big point of that. Then Paul, after the governor, had nodded to him to speak. And it's only then that Paul answers. You remember the Sanhedrin had fallen into confusion because they were all interrupting each other and speaking out of turn.

Paul waits. He's patient. And I think this is incredibly important in any court situation. Because in a judicial court, as well as in the court of public opinion, demeanor is weighed as much or more than the facts themselves. Because your demeanor is what people see in court.

Whether it's a judicial court or the court of public opinion. They see your demeanor. The observers, the jurors, or whoever is observing, the public, they usually have not seen the conduct in question. But they do see our demeanor in the court. The facts, the conduct that's in questioning the court or in the foggy distance, they're not proximate to the observers at the moment.

They're not nearby. But they do see what we're doing. And those actions then become the lens through which everything else is seen. So Paul very wisely waits patiently here. He waits patiently until Felix nods to him to give him the floor to speak.

And so then Paul begins with his opening statement. And just like Tertullus, he uses an opening statement designed to win the approval of his audience, in this case, Felix. But the difference between Paul's opening statement and Tertullus' opening statement is that everything that Paul says is true. Felix had been the governor for a number of years, probably five years or more. There's no flattery in Paul's opening address, but he does use it to build favor with Tertullus in recognizing his years of service.

Secondly, in his opening, he's truthful but he's also respectful of the governing authority. He's very respectful to the court. He is willing to answer. He says, I'm willing to answer. And so he's accepting the jurisdiction of the court.

And secondly, he is willing to answer cheerfully. Knowing that you have been a ruler For many years, I more cheerfully answer for myself. You see, both of these are necessary for true respect and honor. A willingness to answer and to answer cheerfully. You see, cheerful compliance, children, little children, is necessary to honor your parents.

Unhappy compliance, compliance that's not cheerful, is only partial compliance. And partial compliance is not compliance, just like half-truth is not the truth. And so Paul is willing, but He's cheerfully willing. And He makes a point to say that as well as to be cheerful in His defense. You can just see it in His whole defense.

It's a cheerful defense. Even though he's been unjustly accused, he's been defamed, he's been slandered, he's been unjustly imprisoned, he is cheerful in giving his defense. Now let's look then at Paul's defense. And we'll see that he defends himself vigorously. He defends himself very competently, very shrewdly, and then also very boldly to proclaim the Gospel.

He doesn't give up. He doesn't retreat into silence. He doesn't just say well, I'm I mean, I'm in a Roman court there's no justice here. These are all unbelievers. What's the point?

He doesn't He He defends himself vigorously. And so let's look at what he does. First thing is that he testifies to provable facts that either refute the prosecution's testimony or they make it improbable. It's been 12 days since going to Jerusalem. The point of noting this fact is that there would not have been enough time to stir up people and organize a riot.

Because a number of the days have just been in transit and in prison and so on. And then Paul also notes that his accusers did not find him in the temple disputing with anyone or inciting a crowd. See, Paul does not assume that Felix knows all the facts and that he actually recites the facts, the relevant facts for Felix. He reviews them. It's an important thing to make the facts known, present them, not just assume that they are already known.

Secondly, in his defense, Paul invites Felix to verify his testimony, beginning in verse 11. Normally, guilty people who are trying to argue their innocence do not invite further verification of their claims. They don't want somebody poking around in their testimony or their evidence. Because that just increases the likelihood of somebody finding a discrepancy in that testimony. Or uncovering evidence of their guilt.

Last week, a con artist showed up here in church just before the meal, asking for $7.80 for a taxi fare. So I asked him where he lived, And he gave me some general answer out to 97. But when I started inquiring more specifically and talking about taking him home ourselves, then he quickly found a reason to leave and get off the premises. He didn't want anyone ascertaining the truth of his statements. And so Paul invites Felix.

He says, you can ascertain for yourself. Third thing he does in his defense is to provide an alternative motivation for what was true in that accusation. He did go up. He was in the temple. But he explains why he was in the temple.

He went up to the temple to worship. You see, starting a riot is out of character for someone who has gone up to the temple to worship. And Paul's argument is essentially implying that charging a person who went up to the temple to worship with creating a riot is sort of like a very strong weight lifter or a mixed martial arts combat fighter charging an old lady with assaulting him. It's kind of out of character and highly unlikely. And so Paul, you see, is wise.

He's shrewd in the defense that he brings. Fourthly, in his defense, he refutes prosecution testimony. He's not passive about it. He goes on the offense as it were. He directly undermines the prosecution's testimony.

He points out the prosecution's weakness that they can't prove the things of which they now accuse him. They haven't offered any proof. They haven't offered any witnesses. Notice what he doesn't do, he avoids all complaints about them, their person, or he avoids ad hominem attacks on their character. Zertullus, you remember, did just that.

He called Paul a pest, a pestilence, scum. That was an attack upon him to somehow, if he's scum, then He's guilty. But see, Paul doesn't respond in kind. He didn't call Tertullus a liar or anything like that. But at the same time, he doesn't shy away from proclaiming the truth.

He just does so without any personal attacks or ad hominem. Now there's one more thing that I want to point out in his defense, and you're going to have to get your Bibles out and look at this to see it, And that is that Paul restates his case. Paul restates his case. You know, one of the principles that's commonly taught in public speaking is to first Tell your audience what you're going to tell them, and then tell them, and then tell your audience what you just told them. That's one of those rules they tell you in public speaking classes, right?

And that's kind of what Paul does here a little bit. Notice, after he presents the Gospel in verses 14, 15, and 16, he repeats his case providing additional color and details. And that's important because We often miss things the first time. The first time somebody says it. And so saying the things again in a different way with a little different detail attached is very helpful in communicating information.

And that's exactly what Paul does. Look in verse 11. Because you may ascertain that it is no more than 12 days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. There is a fact that he testified to provided an alternate motivation for why he was in the temple. He'd gone up to worship.

But then look in verse 17. He essentially gives the same kind of information. Now after many years, I came bringing alms and offerings to my nation. He's explaining again why he is in the temple, and he's added another detail. First time he said it was to worship, now he's saying I'm bringing alms and offerings to his nation.

Then look in verse 12. He refutes their story that he would call it the riot. He said, They neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone, nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. But then look in verse 18. Some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult.

You see how he's repeating the exact same information. He provides a little bit additional detail, a little additional color. The first time he just said, I wasn't inciting anyone anywhere. And then he says again, the Jews from Asia, he's more specific, They found him in the temple. But again, he wasn't in the mob or two mob.

So you see how he's using this to say the same thing again, to repeat the facts that are critically important in his defense. And then look in verse 13. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse Me. And then look in verse 19. They ought to have been here therefore to object if they had anything against Me.

In other words, he's saying in both those cases, they haven't presented a case. They can't prove the things, and they don't have any witnesses. They can't prove the things they're asserting because they don't even have any witnesses here to testify to the charges, even if they were true. You see, the fact that they didn't bring any witnesses to the charges is further evidence of his innocence. You see, the burden is on his accusers to prove their case.

It's not on Paul to prove his innocence. And so this is a very significant point, and Paul makes it twice, just like he did each of his points in his defense. They can't prove what they're saying, and that's necessary for the success of their case. They don't even have any witnesses here that could testify to these things. So, therefore, without any evidence, you're dismissed.

You should have been dismissed. In any court, if you get a ticket and you show up to court and the policeman doesn't show up, well, you're dismissed. There's no trial. No evidence, no witnesses. But the last point this morning is that Paul steers this discourse and this trial to where it ought to be, to the real source of the conflict, which is their rejection of the central truth of the way, the truth, and the life.

That's what the real issue was. But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which were written in the law and in the prophets. I have hope in God which they themselves also accept that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. In this being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men." That's the heart of his defense. They were trying to get him on charges of sedition, stirring up a riot, and so on.

Paul brings it back, acknowledges what is true in their argument, and he brings it back to where he wants it to go, which is a discussion and vindication of the truth of the Scriptures, because that's the difference. That's the real conflict between Paul and the Pharisees. Well, there is so much in there that I just decided we're not going to be able to squeeze it all in this morning. And so, Lord willing, we will pick up next Sunday with Paul's three-verse summary here of the Gospel. And in the meantime this week, may we never be ashamed of the message of Scripture.

May it be our delight to be able to testify to the truth of God's word. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear, having a good conscience that when they defame you as evildoers, which is what has happened to Paul, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. May that be so in our life. Heavenly Father, we thank You for the fullness of Your Word that it gives to us these examples and instruction in all the areas of our life. There is no area of our life, even in the world of courts and of laws, that Your Word is not sufficient to guide us and to teach us the way in which we should go.

Lord, may we have eyes to see and behold the wonderful truth of Your Word and to be able to apply it in our lives every day. May we be ever-conscious in recognizing Your presence with us. You're walking with us. May You give us a boldness, a fearless boldness, that we do not fear men but fear You. In Jesus' name we ask, Amen.