…Criticizing Jesus for Being “Unloving”?

social idiotCriticizing Christians for Being ‘Less than Loving’

Means Criticizing Jesus for the Same Thing

By Gary DeMar

The enemies of the truth are always awfully nice.

Truth is the strong compost in which beauty may sometimes germinate.

Christopher Morley (1890-1957)tax the rich

Jesus publicly denounced sinners as snakes, dogs, foxes, hypocrites, fouled tombs, and dirty dishes… Christ did not affirm sinners; He affirmed the repentant.  Others He often addressed with the most withering invective. — Philosopher, Michael Bauman

President Obama said the following during an Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House:

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned. But that’s a topic for another day.”

There’s no doubt that some Christians can be unloving. This is true of everybody. Al Sharpton attended the event, and he certainly has been “less-than-loving” in his actions and words.

But that’s a topic for another day.Mad Mag

During the Prayer Breakfast, President Obama did not say a single word about Christians who have been murdered by Muslims for refusing to deny their faith and convert to a false religion. This seems to be a whole lot more “unloving” than not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding.

[Just] Like what’s happening among radical Muslims, the secular religion of our day is a false religion that is being forced on Christians because of their faith. If Christians give into what is thought to be a just a little “pinch of incense”1 to a false god or religion, the demand will be for bigger pinches.

President Obama most likely had the events of Indiana [and others]on his mind when he chastised Christians who stand up for their religious beliefs by opposing same-sex sexuality to be “unloving.”

[Considering the following recent events in America, today’s liberal, pro-homosexual judges are acting as our nation’s secular humanist mullahs. American law, what’s left of it, is now often re-interpreted by the dictates of the gay narrative. The First Amendment is no longer an operating freedom. The Bill of Rights has been redefined as a narrative against the collective mentality. It has been usurped by a liberalized humanistic version of the Quran written to exclude all competing religions, especially Christianity.]

  • Family-owned Memories Pizza in Indiana came into the crosshairs of homosexuals when an owner was interviewed by a local TV station in the aftermath of the adoption of the state’s religious freedom law. Responding to a reporter’s question, the owner said that while her restaurant serves gays, her Christian faith wouldn’t allow her to cater a “gay wedding.” The restaurant immediately became a focal point of outrage toward the law, with threats of death and destruction, causing the owners to shut down their business.
  • The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association no longer is used for weddings because a lesbian duo was denied permission to use it, and a state discrimination complaint was filed.
  • The owners of a Christian farm in upstate New York recently were fined $10,000 and assessed $1,500 in damages for not allowing a lesbian duo to use their land and home for a wedding.
  • The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ordered Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop to use his artistry to celebrate homosexual unions in violation of his Christian beliefs. . . . A state commissioner, Diann Rice, likened Christians to slaver owners and Nazis.
  • The Hitching Post wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was ordered to perform same-sex weddings in violation of their faith.
  • In Washington state, florist Barronelle Stutzman has been penalized $1,001 for declining to support a same-sex wedding with her floral talents.
  • David and Jason Benham were en route to a new HGTV television show when homosexual activists made an issue of their belief in biblical marriage. The network canceled their real estate show, which was to be called “Flip it Forward.” The Benhams maintain that the RFRA is “a shield to protect companies, like, for instance, a Jewish-owned jewelry. It keeps the state from forcing him to create rings with the Nazi symbol on it. Or a Muslim-owned apparel company. It prevents the state from forcing him to maybe make T-shirts with the cross over the crescent. Or even a gay-owned apparel company from creating T-shirts that say Leviticus 18:22. Homosexuality is a sin.” Very simply, “the state should never force business owners to promote a message or an idea that conflicts with their beliefs.”
  • In a New Mexico dispute, courts ordered that a photographer could not refuse to use her talents to memorialize a homosexual wedding.
  • Brendan Eichthe chief executive officer of Mozilla, the company best known for creating Firefox, was attacked by homosexual activists and eventually lost his position because he donated $1,000 to support the 2008 Proposition 8 marriage-definition initiative that was approved by the majority of voters of progressive California.
  • Vermont’s Wildflower Inn paid a settlement and closed its wedding reception business after the ACLU won a $10,000 civil penalty for two lesbians. The settlement also requires the inn’s owners to place $20,000 in a charitable trust for the lesbians.
  • Oregon’s “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” bakery shut down after declining to bake for a “gay wedding.”
  • A Christian T-shirt maker in Kentucky was targeted by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission for refusing to print “gay pride” designs for a local homosexual group.
  • Chris Penner, owner of the Twilight Room Annex bar in Portland, was fined $400,000 under the Oregon Equality Act for excluding transsexual men who, dressed as women, had been alienating other customers by using the women’s restroom. According to the Seattle Times, 11 people – calling themselves the “T-girls” – “will get the money, with awards ranging from $20,000 to 50,000.”

olivet discourseSo, is standing up for the righteousness Jesus advocated “unloving”? In fact, people should be praised for willing to lose everything for the simple act of refusing to bake a cake or cater an event for something they cannot support (Endorsing, advocating, or promoting sinful behavior is not “righteous” or “loving.”). How easy it would have been to compromise; it’s only flour, sugar, butter, and water.

If Christians are labeled as “unloving” for standing up for righteousness, then what does this say about Jesus? Jesus said, “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also” (John 15:20).

To criticize Christians on this issue is to criticize Jesus.

And what is that “word” that is to be kept? On the marriage issue, it’s quite simple:

“And [Jesus] answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE [Gen. 1:275:2], and said, “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH” [Gen. 2:24Eph. 5:31]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate’” (Matt. 19:4-6).

God has “joined together” “male and female,” not “male and male” or “female and female.” So if the President is going to chastise Christians for being “unloving” in this regard, then he must chastise Jesus who is the source for setting the parameters of these “unloving” actions.

Jesus dealt with a number of sexual cases. There was the Samaritan woman who had “five husbands,” and the man she was living with when she met Jesus was not her husband (John 4:16-18). Instead of trying to defend her lifestyle, she embraces Jesus’ message and admits her sin. The same is true of the woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus admonished her to “sin no more” (John 8:11).

Same-sex advocates are pushing for the condemnation of Christians who describe homosexuality as a “sin.” They must condemn Jesus as well. I doubt that Jesus would have turned water into wine (John 2:1-12) for either woman if they had attempted to justify their sinful sexual acts and called for a rewriting or a reinterpretation of the law.

To attack Christians on the issue of same-sex marriage is to condemn Jesus. Given today’s definition of “loving,” Jesus would have been condemned as “unloving” for cleansing the temple and describing some of those who opposed Him as sons of the devil: John 8:44. George Grant writes, “On almost every page of the New Testament, we find Jesus offending someone. When He wasn’t confronting the scribes and the Pharisees, He was rebuking the promiscuous and the perverse.”2  Consider these comments from philosopher Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture and Director of Christian Studies at Hillsdale College:

“At various times, and when the situation demanded, Jesus publicly denounced sinners as snakes, dogs, foxes, hypocrites, fouled tombs, and dirty dishes.  He actually referred to one of His chief disciples as Satan.  So that His hearers would not miss the point, He sometimes referred to the objects of His most intense ridicule both by name and by position, and often face to face. . . . Christ did not affirm sinners; He affirmed the repentant.  Others He often addressed with the most withering invective. God incarnate did not avoid using words and tactics that His listeners found deeply offensive.  He well understood that sometimes it is wrong to be nice.”3

Additionally, the argument that Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships fails to take into account how marriage and sexual relationships are defined in the Bible and how the New Testament is written against the definitional backdrop of the Old Testament, which He [Jesus] endorsed and referenced numerous times. In addition to saying that Jesus did not say anything specifically about same-sex relationships, He didn’t say anything about rape, tripping blind people and cursing the deaf (Lev. 19:14), incest, bestiality, and a whole lot more. He didn’t have to since he came to “fulfill the law . . . not abolish it” (Matt. 5:17), and “fulfill” can’t mean “abolish.”

Part of that law included (1) the definition of marriage of being between a male and a female (see above), (2) the explicit condemnation of same-sex relationships (Lev. 18:2220:13), without negating (3) loving one’s neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18).

In the final analysis, opposing same-sex relationships is the loving thing to do since the way we show our love toward God and our neighbors is to keep God’s commandments: “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:21; also v. 23; Rom. 13:8-101 Tim. 1:8-111 John 2:35:22 John 6Rev. 12:1714:12).

Here’s what we have today: “So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus(Rev. 12:17).

*****

  1. Polycarp, who lived between AD 70 and 155, “was arrested on the charge of being a Christian — a member of a politically dangerous cult whose rapid growth needed to be stopped. Amidst an angry mob, the Roman proconsul took pity on such a gentle old man and urged Polycarp to proclaim, ‘Caesar is Lord.’ If only Polycarp would make this declaration and offer a small pinch of incense to Caesar’s statue he would escape torture and death. To this Polycarp responded, ‘Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?’ Steadfast in his stand for Christ, Polycarp refused to compromise his beliefs, and thus, was burned alive at the stake.”
  2. George Grant, The Micah Mandate: Balancing the Christian Life(Nashville: Cumberland House, 1999), 85.
  3. Quoted in Grant, The Micah Mandate, 85.

Article from www.AmericanVision.org

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in All-Encompassing Gospel, Holy Spirit, Law of Christ, Theology/Philosophy, Z-Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Thank you for your interest and comment.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s