14 April 2015 A.D. Criticizing Christians for Being “Less Than Loving” Means Criticizing Jesus for the Same
14 April 2015 A.D. Criticizing Christians for Being “Less Than Loving” Means Criticizing Jesus for the Same
DeMar, Gary. “Criticizing Christians for Being `Less than Loving’ Means Criticizing Jesus for the Same Thing.” American Vision. 13 Apr 2015. http://americanvision.org/11901/criticizing-christians-less-loving-means-criticizing-jesus-thing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanVision+%28American+Vision%29. Accessed 13 Apr 2015.
Criticizing
Christians for Being ‘Less than Loving’ Means Criticizing Jesus for the Same
Thing
The enemies of the truth are always awfully nice.
Truth is the strong compost in which beauty may sometimes germinate.
Christopher Morley (1890-1957)
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.
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.
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.This is a lot more unloving than
not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding.
President Obama most likely had the events of Indiana on his mind when
he chastised Christians who stand up for their religious beliefs by opposing
same-sex sexuality to be “unloving.”
Is standing up for righteousness “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. 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. 1:27; 5:2], 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. 2:24; Eph. 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 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. 18:22; 20:13), 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. 13:8-10; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 1 John 2:3; 5:2; 2 John 6; Rev. 12:17; 14:12).
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).
Endnotes:
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.(↩)
Comments
Post a Comment