Bake For Them Two?

I read an article the other day titled, “Bake for Them Two.” The author, Jessica Kantrowitz, was responding to the bakers who were refusing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages. Kantrowitz’ argument was that a truly Christian response by the bakers would be to bake not one but two cakes for the gay wedding. She based her suggestion on the passage in Matthew where Jesus told His listeners that if they were compelled to carry a soldier’s load one mile, they should “go the extra mile” and carry it two. I believe this is a misapplication of the Scripture for at least four reasons.

First, the context of the “extra mile” passage is about not seeking revenge. Turning the other cheek is Jesus’ first response to the eye-for-eye harshness of Jewish law. The paragraph closes with the command to give to anyone who asks. Perhaps Kantrowitz is right that the bakers should offer to bake any number of cakes for gay couples at no charge. That action might be seen as a Christian response. It might be disastrous financially if all the gays in town decided to ask for free cake. But none of this has to do with refraining from seeking revenge which is the original context. True, the extra mile paragraph is followed by the famous command to love one’s enemies, so one might see the extra cake as a display of selfless love. However, I don’t think any of the bakers who are being sued would call homosexuals their enemy; they just don’t want to support the gay lifestyle, so again, the context doesn’t support Kantrowitz’ argument.

Second, Roman law was vastly different from US law. In first century Palestine, as Rome called it, Caesar was the only law. Whatever the emperor said became the law of the empire. That law required all people in Roman controlled territories to carry the pack of any soldier who asked for one mile. Jesus’ command was to not fight against the Roman oppressors’ regulations, not to seek revenge on an individual soldier, but to do more than was required: go the extra mile.

Despite Kantrowitz’ attempt to create an equivalency, there is none. Law in the United States is based on the Constitution. There is no constitutional requirement that a citizen must bake a cake for anyone. That would violate the Fourth Amendment grant of security in one’s possessions. These bakers believe that same-sex marriages are wrong because the Bible says so. They see baking a cake as tacit approval of the wedding it is baked for. To force them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would infringe on their right to live out their beliefs. There is no imperial mandate to bake cakes, so Kantrowitz’ argument fails.

Third, the bakers are claiming that their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion is the major sticking point. The bakers believe the First Amendment gives them the right to refuse to do anything that would violate their faith. It is illegal to force someone to violate a sacred belief even if someone tries to use Jesus’ command to love one another. If a woman tried to seduce a married man by saying that loving like Jesus compels him to sleep with her as a demonstration of Jesus’ love, he could refuse on solid grounds. The prohibition against adultery trumps the call to love everyone. In the same way, the belief that same-sex unions are unbiblical trumps Kantrowitz’ love-in-the-name-of-Christ argument.

Fourth, many supporters of the gay right to force the baking of cakes claim that the First Amendment rights of the gay couple are being infringed. This is patently false. There is no infringement of gay rights because there is no constitutional right to have a wedding cake. Besides that, the gay couple could easily procure a cake from another baker who has no problem with same-sex marriages. As I understand it, the courts would have to prove harm was done to the gay couple by the baker’s refusal to bake them a cake. I can’t imagine what harm could be found.

I believe the entire issue of the wedding cakes is just another ploy by the LGBTQ+ movement to establish their victimhood in the eyes of the greater population. As I wrote years ago in “The Uncomfortable Subject,” it is shocking that a very small minority of Americans has been able to sway public opinion in their favor. I don’t believe that there ever was a need for special gay rights because their rights were already guaranteed by constitutional prohibitions against discrimination. It has become clear to me that the real agenda was never to ensure rights but rather to establish a platform from which to lobby for acceptance of the gay lifestyle and, more importantly, to force society to promote that lifestyle.

The ploy certainly worked. LGBTQ+ issues are now being preached and protected in every forum and institution in America including many churches. The promotion and forced acceptance of transgender persons has reached such a ridiculous point that even the President of liberal, lusty France has expressed dismay at how far we have taken it. I have to wonder how long it will be before parents of young girls rebel against the thought of boys in their daughters’ shower room. I wonder how many women will have to be disgusted by the men in their rest rooms to reverse the idiocy. (For more on this see “Truth Dysphoria”)

As Christians, we are bound to obey the law of the land. (See “Romans 13 Applied”) But we are also called to spread the Kingdom of light into the darkness. We can do this by exercising our God-given freedom in America with political activity and by voting for candidates who support traditional values. (See “Bringing the Kingdom”) American society is at a tipping point. I believe traditional, conservative moral values are still important to a majority of Americans. We have to stand up and make our voices heard. We will not be victims; we are more than conquerors spiritually through Christ and we can be conquerors politically through the American democratic system of government.

Related posts: America Held Captive; I Pray for America

Clobber the Argument

I have been enjoying some stimulating conversations recently with a friend who disagrees radically with me about certain aspects of Christian behavior. At first, I thought it was a matter of interpretation of a few specific verses of Scripture. As the conversation went on over a few days, I realized that our differences stemmed from something much deeper than interpretation. Our disagreement arises from an entirely different view of the inspiration of the Bible. As I wrote in “Disagree Agreeably,” when the disagreement is over two things that are mutually exclusive, one or both of the parties must have the facts wrong: there is only one true truth.

The place I am compelled to go to determine ultimate truth is to the Scripture. The problem that often arises, as it has in my current situation, is that the parties to the disagreement hold different views of the inspiration of the Bible. I agree with most traditional biblical scholars that the Bible is true in everything that it asserts as truth. This view stems from a belief in verbal inspiration – that every word of Scripture is God-breathed. This position is sometimes labeled as “literal interpretation,” but I dislike that word. There are many passages, even whole books in the Bible that are not meant to be literal. The poetry found in the wisdom literature and the apocalyptic writings of the prophets are two good examples of inspired Scripture that are not strictly literal.

The person taking a “non-literal” view will say that much of the Old Testament is allegorical – that some of the people and events recorded in Scripture are not historical reality. This is an ancient misunderstanding which the early church branded as heretical. Another result of taking a “non-literal” view of Scripture is that much of the New Testament is considered irrelevant because it was written to a particular cultural context that no longer applies. This demeaning of the Bible’s reliability as a source of truth typically leads to developing an understanding of “truth” that relies on the interpreter’s feelings about who God is and what He desires from His people. Rob Bell famously took this tack when denying the existence of hell in Love Wins. (See my series “Answering Rob Bell”.)

In an effort to understand my friend’s position, I have read an author he recommended who holds a position similar to his. Dr. Mel White began to argue for the Christian acceptance of same-sex relationships over twenty years ago. In an early pamphlet, he suggested that we need to be open to “new revelation” from God concerning our modern situation. He believes that the Bible proscriptions of homosexual behavior were relevant only to the culture that existed at the time the words were written. He makes much of the fact that, in his estimation, there are only a few verses in the entire Bible that prohibit same-sex relationships, so the prohibition cannot be important to God.

In White’s most recent book on the subject, Clobber the Passages, he simply dismisses the Scripture because he is tired of arguing about it. The entire book is anecdotal reporting meant to elicit feelings of guilt and dismay over the sad results of homosexuals being treated badly by well-meaning Christians who believe the Bible calls homosexual activity a sin. I cannot argue with White that the church has treated homosexuals badly. Unfortunately, neither can I argue the main point because it depends on Scripture which White has dismissed out of hand. Most distressing to me is the fact that White uses sentiment to determine right and wrong. Like Rob Bell’s assertion that consigning people to hell doesn’t make for a good story, White believes that condemning homosexual behavior is out of character for a loving God. Both men forget there is a balance between God’s love and His justice. (See “The Goodness of Wrath”)

In “The Importance of Being Right,” I made the following statement: “It may sound arrogant to say, but when I express an opinion, at that moment, in my state of knowledge at that moment, I believe I am right. I welcome all challenges to my positions as long as they are based on the same foundation as that on which I stand: revealed truth. If I am wrong, I want to be proved wrong so that I can correct my position. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, it is of utmost importance that I be right. If there is something wrong with that, prove it.” I cannot argue for truth with someone who denies the truth as I see it.

This leaves me in an uncomfortable position with my friend. He is a man who loves God and loves his neighbor as the Savior commands. I commend him for that. What I cannot commend is that his love for practicing homosexuals compels him to excuse what the Bible calls sin in my understanding. He believes God blesses committed same-sex unions (now allowed as marriage) in the same way He blesses traditional marriage. He drew my attention to the many inappropriate (perverted) cases of sexual behavior reported in the Old Testament. Polygamy, adultery, incest, and promiscuity all appear in the pages of ancient biblical records. However, just because the Bible reports something, it is not necessarily approved by God.

The most striking example my friend led me to was the “man after God’s own heart,” King David – adulterous, murderous, polygamous David. The thought gave me a moment’s pause until I remembered that while David was all those things, he also repented of them with tears as recorded in Psalm 51. He knew he had sinned, and he begged God to forgive and cleanse him. My friend might point out that David did not stop living with Bathsheba; in fact, he fathered his successor, King Solomon with her. (Solomon’s sexual imperfections make me wonder about generational sin, but that’s another story.) The only direct parallel I can see with the same-sex blessing argument would be if the parties involved confessed and repented of their sin as David did. Of course, they won’t; they are assured by folks like Mel White that they are not sinning.

The man I am calling my friend is a dear saint who has served the church in several capacities for decades. I want to like him; I want to be his friend. However, it is difficult for me to convince him that I love homosexuals with the love of Christ as much as he does. I agree that the church has a long way to go to demonstrate that love (See “The Uncomfortable Subject”), but I don’t agree that whitewashing clearly defined sin is a loving thing to do. I am often reminded that Jesus didn’t say our doctrine would show people we are His; it’s our love for one another that marks us as disciples. What I think everyone needs to remember is that Jesus also said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” He followed that with: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you.”

Here is the dilemma: is Mel White hearing from the Holy Spirit the new “all things” Jesus was referring to? Or was the canon of Scripture closed in the first century bringing an end to inspired revelation as all the early church fathers and the ensuing councils asserted? Dr. White and my friend want to point out that Jesus never condemned same-sex unions. They are right. But as I have said before, non-mention is not tacit approval. This whole love-like-Jesus-loved is hard. I think it was Swindoll who said that the Christian life is not hard; it’s impossible – impossible without the Holy Spirit’s help. God help me in this; as I said before: I want to be right.

The Consolation Prize

There was a time when someone who didn’t get the big prize got something called a consolation prize. An idea has become prevalent in elementary and secondary schools that children will be damaged if they don’t all achieve the same outcomes – get first prize. Instead of providing equal opportunity for all children to succeed and naturally find that some excel, it has become necessary for all children to believe they are excellent. Necessarily, this has resulted in the lowering of standards of excellence. One example of this is the travesty of “invented spelling.” Students need not learn how to spell words properly; they are allowed to make up their own spelling for difficult words. The idea that children cannot be told they are wrong is disastrous.

This tragedy is compounded by the fact that most children spend much of their “free time” in front of one device or another getting little or no exercise, mental or physical. The explosion of cable networks catering to children assures that they have endless hours of drivel, both animated and live, that repeats the mantra that everyone always wins. Computer games allow unlimited retries to achieve whatever passes as success on the screen. This too is reflective of an academic disease: several years ago I was told that a high school teacher allowed students to retake a test as many times as necessary until they could pass. No wonder high school graduates are attaining such high GPA’s.

As a composition instructor of college freshman, I saw the results of this misguided philosophy every term. Being from the cruel old school era where standards existed that must be met, I was forced to give some students less than a perfect score. I remember one young lady who was virtually in tears because I gave her a C on her composition. She whined that she was an honor student in her high school English classes and could not believe I dared to mark her writing so poorly. I still believe a C means average, and to be truthful, her work was actually below what I would call average, but I wanted to soften the blow. Reality bites, they say.

Another result of the school systems’ failure to properly educate is even more distressing. As a composition teacher, I felt it was my duty to teach not just proper writing but critical thinking as well. Rhetoric, as it used to be called, requires the ability to communicate effectively having built a strong case for the chosen position. The ever-increasing pressure to have students achieve high scores on state tests has devolved “teaching” into the process of providing the “right” answer on a test. I found very few students who could reason their way to a logical conclusion and many who simply wanted to know “the answer.”

I was further troubled by the fact that often a student who made a reasonable argument was often challenged by other students who had no support for their argument. To believe something because you have been told it is true is not altogether a bad thing. However, at some point, everyone must examine what they have been told to see if it can stand the test of reality. For example, many of my students were in favor of the “free” college education a certain political candidate was proposing. When asked who would pay for the “free” schooling, none could answer. When informed that taxes would have to be levied that would eventually come out of their paychecks many were forced to rethink the meaning of “free.”

But enough of my college teaching days. What has this to do with Heaven (WHAMM.)? The same sloppy reasoning has infected the church. Rather than studying to show themselves approved, too many Christians are swallowing whatever they are told about the Bible. Some of the misapprehensions are insignificant, but some are not. (See “The Lies We Have Been Told”) Sentimentality, which I believe drives the everyone-is-a-winner philosophy in schools, has caused many to take the pain out of the flip side of the gospel coin.

The good side of the good news is that people can be saved; the other side is that people can be lost. What some have tried to do is remove the painful part of the truth by denying that hell exists (See “Answering Rob Bell” 1-6). Others develop a theology of universal salvation from a desire to make God seem less prickly. Neither of these positions can be supported with proper biblical interpretation. Here again, using standards and applying logic are skills not frequently taught these days. It is much more comfortable to think that everyone goes to heaven (gets the prize) than to believe that some people will suffer eternal separation from God.

Unfortunately, hell is a reality that cannot be wished away. Jesus spent a good share of His teaching time warning about the consequences of unbelief. Logic requires us to believe that there is a penalty for sin; otherwise, God played a cruel joke on His Son by making Him suffer the agony of the crucifixion needlessly. If sin and unbelief have no dire consequences, why take such great pains to educate Israel through centuries of sacrificial worship culminating in the ultimate Sacrifice once for all?

There is one prize available to everyone. In 2 Thessalonians 2:16 Paul tells us that Christ is our eternal consolation (KJV). God so loved the world that He gave us a way to have eternal life with Him, but that life is available only to “whosoever believes on [His Son].” While it is true that God is not willing that any should perish, it is also true that some will perish by their own choice. I don’t know exactly how that will all work out; it is up to God to see that it does.* I do know that in this case, the “consolation prize” is to be desired above all else.

*For more an how this works see “God’s Choice or Man’s” and “Election: God’s Choice”

How Do You Read Paul?

Several years ago, I was seated next to a man in an Irish pub in Chicago. Somehow we got to talking about the Bible and he shared that he believed what Jesus had to say, but he didn’t count the Apostle Paul as an inspired writer. I thought about this encounter because a friend recently suggested to me that we should view the writings of Paul through the lens of the Gospels. In both instances, the subject that elicited the pronouncements about Paul was homosexuality. My friend stated categorically that he did not believe homosexual practice was sin. His view is not unique in some circles.

I promised to consider the idea of looking at Paul through the lens of the Gospels, and this is what I have decided. That process is exactly backwards. I have several reasons for coming to that conclusion. First, Jesus was an Old Testament prophet, albeit the premier OT prophet, and as such, He spoke within the paradigm of the Old Covenant to people who were still under that covenant. As my friend made clear to me regarding my New Testament application of an Old Testament act by God, one must take great care in applying OT concepts to NT times. Different times; different paradigm.

Second, Jesus said on more than one occasion that His disciples did not understand His message, but they would catch on after He sent the Holy Spirit. In John 16, Jesus said that He had more to say, but the disciples couldn’t bear it at that time. When the Holy Spirit came, Jesus asserted, He would guide them into all truth. The idea that we should use the Gospels, a partial revelation to interpret the fuller revelation given after Pentecost is not sound.

Third, and most revealing is Paul’s assertion that his “gospel” came directly from Jesus. He said, “ For I make known to you, brothers, the gospel that has been proclaimed by me, that it is not of human origin. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Most scholars believe that Paul’s personal revelation was what he referred to as, “a man in Christ… caught up to the third heaven… and heard words not to be spoken.” Paul continues, “because of the extraordinary degree of the revelations…. so that I would not exalt myself, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, in order that it would torment me so that I would not exalt myself.”

Finally, the fact that Jesus never specifically prohibited homosexual practice does not mean that He condoned it. Arguing from a negative always puts the debate on shaky ground. Jesus never said a woman didn’t have the right to abort a fetus she didn’t want to carry either; that doesn’t make abortion acceptable. Jesus never said you shouldn’t take mind-altering drugs either; that doesn’t make drug use acceptable. On the other hand, Paul did say specifically that, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” A few verses later he identifies a particular form of unrighteousness saying, “their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error.”

As I said in Red Letters; Red Faces, I have been accused of insensitivity and arrogance with regard to some of my pronouncements. In the case of elevating the Gospels above the writings of Paul, I believe a foundational principle of interpretation is being ignored. To read the Bible correctly, we must always use the more clear passages to clarify the less clear. In other words, Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired, Jesus-taught “gospel” takes precedence over the four Gospels if there is any question.

The only reason for discounting Paul seems to be a desire to justify or condone behavior that Paul condemns as sin. Perhaps in an effort to show the love of Jesus to sinners, some Christians have felt it necessary to rewrite the Scripture so as to erase the sin. Whatever the motivation, the outcome is wrong. The old saw about hating the sin but loving the sinner is biblical truth. I pointed out in “The Uncomfortable Subject” that to a great degree, the church has failed to practice that principle with regard to homosexuals. For reasons that seem to be integral to our humanity, sexual sin, especially homosexual sin, is particularly heinous. This creates a false dichotomy condemning one sin as worse than another. We must not excuse one sin or ignore another because it makes us feel better. All sin separates the sinner from God; thankfully, the penalty for all sin was paid on the Cross of Calvary.

God feels the same way about all sin and we need to figure out how to get into God’s way of thinking. While we were still bound by sin, Paul says, God loved us so that He sent His son to die for us. My assertion that homosexual behavior is sin does not excuse me from loving the homosexual. However, I am reminded of what someone has said: “God loves us just as we are, but He loves us too much to leave us just as we are.” As I have written repeatedly, biblical love means caring more for the other than for ourselves. If I am going to speak the truth in love to the homosexual, I feel compelled to warn him that unconfessed, habitual sin separates the sinner from God. Only God knows the extent of that separation. I must speak; God will judge.

Related posts: Who is Discriminating?; Here Comes the Judge;  Christophobia Part 2