Daniel J. Summers » Charter Member of the VRWC

Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an article entitled “How Do Christians Become Conservative?” I believe that this article was significantly flawed; I hope those friends will take the time to read this and think about what it says. Know my heart in this; it’s not a me vs. them, conservative vs. liberal thing, it’s about truth. As a Christian, I want to ensure that claims made about my Savior are accurate; after all, if we’re supposed to follow His example, shouldn’t we make sure we know what that is?

The article was written by a man named Mike Lux. In this article, he goes through great pains to show how Jesus was actually a progressive (a term liberals like to use for themselves to avoid the negative connotations associated with liberalism). I found his theology questionable, being based in large part on taking quotes out of context. Over the course of this entry (and at least one more to come), I’d like to show where this is misguided. I have no personal vendetta agains Mr. Lux, nor do I derive any pleasure at showing where his arguments break down; this is not about him or me.

(Regular readers of my occasional posts here will know that I either post short items or long items; this isn’t going to be short. Quotes below are from Mr. Lux, unless otherwise noted.)

First off, I want to address his view of Scripture.

I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn’t going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I’ll be there with a lot of my favorite people.

I focused here on the Jesus of the Gospels (principally Matthew, Mark and Luke — the Gospel of John is almost all focused on mystical spiritualism)….

Judeo-Christian scripture is a rich and complicated work of literature. Written over the course of (at least) several hundred years by dozens of different authors, there are a variety of perspectives and many times outright contradictions in the theology and the politics of the writing (if it’s all inspired word for word by God, He seems to have changed his mind a lot).

This, then, is an unbeliever trying to tell believers what Scripture says. He obviously does not believe 2 Timothy 3:16, which states “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness…” Either all of the Bible is true, or none of It is; if It is not entirely true, how do we know which portions are and which portions aren’t? Why base your faith or arguments in a flawed book?

Given this view of the Bible, it almost makes sense why his arguments are so selective. There are portions of the Bible that can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say. A serious study of the Scriptures must consider the many different contexts; the context within the surrounding verses, the context with Scripture even in different books of the Bible, and the context of the culture in which the statements were made.

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his.

This is true; however, it wasn’t just His followers for whom He was concerned regarding spiritual well-being. In fact, one verse that is frequently taken out of context is Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus.
John 8:10-11

Wow! How non-judgemental! I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard this being used by someone to justify why a Christian shouldn’t point out their sin to them. There’s just one problem with this – I (just as they do) conveniently left out the last part, which changes things just a bit.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.” (emphasis mine)

Jesus didn’t condemn her (a point lost on some Christians, that’s for sure); but, He did not ignore her sin! He gave her forgiveness and a charge to change her behavior. This is certainly only one example (and not even one Mr. Lux made), but it’s illustrative of how omitting something can change the meaning of Scripture.

With that example, let’s dive into Mr. Lux’s use of that technique.

In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed.

He’s speaking of Luke 6:20-26. “Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.” (v. 20b) However, compare this with Matthew’s account – “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.” So, is Jesus talking about poverty, or is He talking about pride? Balanced against the remainder of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, I believe He’s talking about pride. Realizing that one is a sinner and needs forgiveness requires a humility that’s unnatural for us humans.  Generally speaking, those who are wealthy tend to rely on their wealth, rather than the saving grace that Jesus offers.

I’ll grant him that yes, Luke 6:24-25 do appear to say what he says they do when taken out of context. There are other Scriptures that speak to the difficulty someone who has riches can have following the Lord.

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:24

As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good but One – God. You know the commandments: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not defraud; honor your father and mother.”

He said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these from my youth.”

Then, looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” But he was stunned at this demand, and he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
Mark 10:17-22 (emphasis mine)

Jesus loved this person who wanted to follow Him. However, He knew the hindrance that these possessions would have on this man’s ability to focus on following Christ. Jesus didn’t condemn him for having these possessions and riches; rather, He told him how he should use them. Caring for the poor and needy is an outcome of one’s relationship with Christ; in fact, James 1:27 says “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…”  There are several other places where rich people are told to use their acquired wealth to help the poor; they’re not condemned for earning it, just directed to use it in a different way.  Again, this fruit comes from the seed of a relationship with Christ.

(On a side note – this is not a governmental edict. Isn’t it “progressives” who accuse conservatives of trying to make America into a theocracy? Of trying to make God’s law into man’s law? Where’s the “separation of church and state” argument, Mr. Lux?)

For today, let’s look at one more of the claims from the original article.

He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

This is true. However, did He chase these bankers and merchants from the temple because they were wealthy? Of course not – this claim shows his ignorance of how these things worked. Originally, the Jews were supposed to bring a spotless lamb or dove to the temple for a sacrifice, or certain amounts of grain or other produce for an offering. As the Jews branched into pursuits other than agriculture and farming, and as they became more busy (sound familiar?), a cottage industry sprang up with people who would sell spotless lambs and doves and measures of produce that the people could purchase, then offer to the priests to take care of their responsibilities.

Scripture doesn’t condemn this aspect; and, as with pretty much any business, a little profit goes a long way to ensuring the business can continue. However, greed soon set in, and these vendors were not selling what they claimed to sell. Some of the animals were not spotless. False weights were used to charge people more than what they rightfully should have been charged. This was the reason Jesus went through the temple like a bull in a china shop, and the only time we see Him being physically violent. What was His problem? “Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves!” (Mark 11:17) “Den of thieves” was not class warfare; it was an accurate description of those selling 2 ounces of product for the price of 3, and those passing off blemished animals as spotless. This story (recorded nearly word-for-word by three of the Gospels) is about people scamming others, using their desire to worship God for their own monetary gain.

There will be (at least) a part 2; I still haven’t addressed his claim that Matthew 25 shows how to get to heaven (hint: don’t be rich), nor have I addressed the (red herring, IMO) of limited socialism within the early church, as described in the book of Acts. It will be linked below once it’s written.

Via Cassy Fiano, we get a transcript and a link to video of an interview of Rick Warren by Ann Curry. As you probably know, Rick is the pastor of Saddleback Church in California and the author of the Purpose-Driven Life books. He has also been selected to deliver the invocation at the upcoming inauguration, which really has the gay community’s collective panties in a wad.  Me, I think it’s funny seeing these special interest groups get their first twinges of buyer’s remorse.

Anyway, enough babbling from me.  Here’s the transcript excerpt…

ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the spectre that you are homophobic.

Warren responds with a hearty laugh.

CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.

RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred –

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?

WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

I think this is just awesome.  It’s succinct, it’s personal, and it illustrates that his views on sexual relations are, in fact, not bigoted in the least.

Presbyterians?  Methodists?  Catholics?  Wiccans?  You know the answer to that…

One of the fall’s most anticipated video games for the PlayStation 3, Sony’s “LittleBigPlanet,” had to be yanked from shelves at the last minute Monday because it might accidentally offend Muslims.

You can read the whole article here.  It seems that one of the songs has two lines that also appear in the Koran.  You know, I’d actually be happy if a popular video game had a song with a few lines from the Bible.  But, I guess since Christians don’t handle their offense the same way Muslims do, we just get to get offended.

(Not that I want censure of anything that may offend any religion – most religions can handle it.)

Do you spend 28 minutes a day commuting? Doing housework? Reading e-mail? If so, you’ve got the time to listen to the Bible. Faith Comes by Hearing has created a dramatized reading of the New Testament, that can be completed in 40 days, 28 minutes each day. Starting February 11th, running through Good Friday on March 21st, Albuquerque is encouraged to listen – and you don’t have to be in Albuquerque to do it, either! They offer a free download on their website – I encourage each of you to join me in listening to the Bible over 40 days.

There will be a list on this blog of the chapters that make up each day – at the top of the page, just below the Verse of the Day, there will be an entry with that day’s chapters. Also, if you’re using Linux, I was not able to get the free download to work. However, I did get my paws on an actual CD, and you can download the ISO here. (Please try to get it from them first – only download this if you can’t.)

There is something that has been bugging me, and thanks to an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I’m getting around to addressing it. Here is the transcript which we’ll be discussing – a strong language warning is in effect. (Quoted portions here will be sanitized.) I’ll state up front that Bill Maher is a comedian, so I understand that some of this is his schtick. I’ll also state that I’m not picking on him, just using what he said as an example of an argument I’ve heard hundreds of time. The argument is this – current practitioners of Christianity have it all wrong. Jesus was accepting and loving, not full of hate like today’s Christians.

We’ll start with Maher’s monologue…

And finally, New Rule: If the choice in ’08 is between Rudy and Hillary, “values voters” must do the Christian thing and choose Hillary. Of course, I think all religion is nuts, but at least she practices it the way Jesus suggested: privately. Like a Dick Cheney energy meeting.

I’ll certainly grant him one thing – though Hillary’s husband is a louse, they are both still married in their first marriage. But, apart from that, the only time Hillary goes to church is when there’s a good photo op, whereas Giuliani has not pretended to be religious.

Plus, she’s raised an admirable daughter, while Rudy’s kids couldn’t hate him more if they were New York City firefighters.

And let’s not forget, Hillary didn’t commit adultery. Her husband did. And afterwards, she did the Christian thing and forgave him. And then she had a GPS unit implanted in his {manhood}. But the important thing is, she forgave him!

I included these just for a chuckle or two. He does make a few good points. Some may speculate about whether her forgiveness was politically calculated or not, but regardless, she did forgive him, even after the one reason given in Scripture as allowing divorce (more on that later).

Now, I bring all this up because this weekend in Washington is the “Values Voters Convention.” Three days of peace, love and hypocrisy. Where the Republican frontrunners will spend the week kissing the {backsides} of 2,000 social conservatives who despise liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, Mexicans and Nobel Prize winners. And who believe the sound of a condom wrapper being opened makes angels die.

Now we start with the elitism and name-calling. I listen to and read conservative commentary, I am friends with many conservatives, and I consider myself to be a conservative as well. I don’t despise liberals, though I do despise their viewpoints. I don’t despise homosexuals. I’ll admit that I’m a little apprehensive of Muslims, but living and working around them for four months while I was deployed certainly helped ease that apprehension. I have no problems with Mexicans at all – however, I believe they should emigrate to this country according to our laws. And the last line isn’t even worthy of a comment.

It’s kind of like a “Star Trek” convention, only the virgins are angry–and they think outer space is just a theory. So, Ann Coulter, if you’ve got any more “{queer}” jokes, this is the room for you.

On the contrary, most “values voters” are not virgins; they just ascribe to God’s version of sexuality. And, they know that outer space isn’t just a theory; God created it. And, most conservatives I know can parse words well enough to realize that what Ann Coulter was making fun of the railroading of Isaiah Washington and the lack of manliness of John Edwards – not using the slur against Edwards.

Moving along…

And I know that if you can look at the war in Iraq, the melting environments and the descent of America into “idiocracy,” and still think our biggest problems are boobies during the Super Bowl and the “war on Christmas,” then you don’t have values, you have issues.

We disagree on the war in Iraq. Global warming is a religion, not science, and information keeps coming out every week disproving this religion, with it’s “indulgences” in the form of carbon credits. Conservatives are also concerned about the lack of knowledge amongst the public, which is why we are in favor of trying other alternatives to the proven failed government school system. Broadcast standards are what they are – whine all you want, that’s why your show is on HBO. And the “war on Christmas” is an assault on freedom of religion, one of the bedrock principles of this country. I’ll agree, “we” have issues, but by “we” I mean this entire nation.

If you had “values,” you’d draw the line at torture. But a startling number of people who call themselves Christians don’t. And I’m pretty sure if you asked, “What would Jesus veto,” it wouldn’t be health care for sick kids.

Sure, we’ll draw the line at torture – but not your definition of torture, which is “pretty much anything that makes the detainee uncomfortable.” And I’m pretty sure Jesus would have vetoed this latest S-CHIP bill, which isn’t health care for sick kids, it’s health insurance for middle-class kids.

Let me take this opportunity for a rabbit-trail rant. What is it with liberals and dishonest euphemisms? “Taxes” become “contributions”, health “insurance” becomes health “care”, “religion” becomes “hate” (unless it’s Islam, then it’s hallowed and is not to be trifled with), and “interrogation” is “torture”. As the Godfather has said, “Words mean things.” If they were honest about their agenda, the public would never buy it. Who here is against “health care for children”? (crickets chirping) Who here is against “taxpayer (that’s you and me, by the way)-funded health insurance for children of middle-class families through age 25″? (show of hands) That’s what I thought.

But back to Bill – here it is, folks, his grand finale…

Why, it’s almost like “values voters” don’t really believe Jesus was right about anything. [in mock attack ad voice] “Jesus Christ: wrong on gays, wrong on taxes, wrong on torture, and wrong for America.”

Here’s a passage I’ve heard I don’t know how many times, used to prove this exact point. It’s from John 8, where the people brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus. Their law said she should be stoned, but they wanted to see what Jesus would say. We’ll look at verses 3-11 from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (click the link to read them, if you think I’m quoting them incorrectly, or to read it in a different translation).

³ Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. ⁴ “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. ⁵ In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” ⁶ They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.

Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. ⁷ When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Oooh, that’s good! That’s usually where the argument ends. “You’re not sinless, so who are you to ‘cast stones’ at me?” They interpret “casting stones” as “saying what I’m doing is wrong.” Rather than excusing sin, though, this is a prohibition against meting out punishment. Casting stones was executing a death-sentence judgment against someone. But there’s more!

⁸ Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. ⁹ When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. ¹⁰ When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ “No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus.

“But look! Jesus SAID ‘I don’t condemn you’!!!” Again, calling a sin a sin is not condemnation. But, there’s one part of this verse that conveniently gets snipped, and it’s the part that we as Christians believe is the most important part.

“Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

The emphasis in the above is, of course, mine. Jesus did not condemn her, but He also did not say that what she was doing was “just the way she was, and we should accept it” or “fine with Him as long as she wasn’t hurting anyone else.” He forgave, then gave her the charge of turning away from that sin. That is the truly beautiful part of this story – we don’t have to continue sinning, to continue to be a slave to sin, once we have met the saving power of Christ.

In logic, a “straw man” is a fallacious argument of an opponent’s position that is misconstrued but argued as fact. That is what people who espouse these arguments are doing. They are setting up a straw man of this religion that Jesus never taught, so they can tear down our practice of it. They’re wrong, and we should call them on it. There is a difference between being meek and defending the faith.

So, the next time someone tells you what Jesus would do, (as Paul Harvey would say) now you know the rest of the story.

There just isn’t enough time in the day to do everything I want to do. Sadly, one of the casualties is original content for my blog (although I am working on something that I hope to have ready in a few days). Until then, here’s another round-up of interesting things I found scattered around the web.

First up, from the American Thinker, we have Randall Hoven with “Media Dishonesty Matters.” In this tome, he details 101 incidents of plagiarism, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and instances of journalists creating news out of thin air. This should probably count as three or four links, but we’ll keep pressing on.

Next up, LaShawn Barber asks Barack Obama this pointed question – “What Faith Is This?” He has claimed that his faith guides his public life, yet he voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion. That’s a good question.

Moving on, Dennis Prager of TownHall.com (among other places) asks another, somewhat rhetorical question – “So What?” In it, he, a devout Jew, explains why he is not offended in the least over Ann Coulter’s latest statement that Jews need to be “perfected” by accepting Christ. He also explains why labeling her statements as anti-Semitism does a disservice to the efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism.

Finally, I usually wrap up with some humor – but this one will inspire a different emotion. I may be the last person in the world to find out about this song, but I’ve got to share it. Tim McGraw’s “If You’re Reading This” is a tribute to men and women in uniform, and is a tear-jerking classic.

As a resident of Montgomery, AL, I’m privy to the much to-do being made over the granite Ten Commandments monument that duly-elected Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court had placed in the capitol. A Federal judge has ordered it be removed, and Justice Moore is refusing. The stage is set for a pretty large showdown very soon. As you can probably tell from my links and my previous entries, I’m a pretty religious person. However, I’m going to approach this from a purely humanistic viewpoint.

The Ten Commandments were the foundation for Jewish law. These commandments are recorded today in our Holy Bible, and the first four reference God or holiness (no other gods, no graven images, God’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath holy). The remaining six are good precepts even for those who do not subscribe to any form of religion. These are no different from other historical laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and other collections of laws.

Several of our founding documents reference concepts found in the religious commandments. The Constitution, Article I, Section 7, recognizes Sundays as a day apart (much like commandment 4). The Declaration of Independence, in the first paragraph, recognizes Nature’s God, and in the second, recognize the Creator – both are capitalized and singular, in line with the 1st commandment. Furthermore, The Magna Carta, a body of English law upon which our Constitution was based (and, coincidentally, predates the 1611 KJV by nearly 400 years), contain references to the one and only God in the Preamble and section 1.

We have also been told as of late that we should accept all religions, including the ever-peaceful Muslims. The prevailing world view of many people is that there is good in everything – and, judging from recent rulings by various courts and the politically correct culture that has pervaded our country, this is the way the government should look at things.

Given that references to most of the overtly religious commandments are in our country’s founding documents, and the fact that we are supposed to find the good in everything, I see no reason for this marker to be removed. Justice Moore’s personal beliefs should not be brought into this argument. With the 1st Amendment to our Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) prohibiting government from preventing free exercise of religion, the Federal judge’s ruling that it must be removed is un-Constitutional, and will be found as such if it is appealed.