When Believers Fall

I have the feeling that J. West is a very insecure person because he feels the need to judge and condemn others who sin or fall to temptation. If you look at his website with any consistency you would have noticed how he regularly finds some situation in which he can stand in judgement over and feel superior to those he is condemning.

His latest excursion into this area comes when a believer has not been victorious over sexual temptation:


Reprehensible hypocrite…It’s easy to see the pathology of this dictatorial misogynist lurking behind his every word and work.  What’s surprising isn’t that he’s a reprehensible reprobate.  What’s surprising is that it took so long for people to find out.

I only quoted West’s words there so you could see for yourself the self-righteous stand he takes and the utter ignorance of mitigating factors while leaping to label Mr. Gothard a hypocrite.

Jesus was tempted which means his followers will be as well and how we handle temptation can be seen as a progress report of our Christian lives. Since Christians are human, we will sin and fail. We will submit to temptation because we are not always strong nor hide in Jesus or ask for strength to combat the attacks of evil.

Those failures do not grant permission to others who claim to be Christian to judge or condemn. Instead they are opportunities for other believers to take action and work to restore the fallen to good standing n Christ.

It was said decades ago, and I am not sure if it is still used or not, that Christians are the only group that shoot their wounded. Sadly, in their haste to be seen as holy or spiritual many believers kick their fallen brethren when they are down and ignore what scriptures said to do.

We are familiar with the common verses that are used to fight against this trend, ‘Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone’ or ‘do not judge lest ye be judged’ yet there is a verse or two in Galatians that provide instruction to guide the believer in this situations:

Brethren, even if [a]anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.(ch 6 NASB)

Notice it does not say to call the fallen person names or condemn them. Jesus wants those who are more mature to step in and help the fallen believer up.  We are not to label them as hypocrites because hypocrisy doesn’t include falling to temptation or failing to gain victory over sin in one’s life.

Christian leaders are not immune to temptation and we should not be hasty in condemning them when they succumb and sin. We may have to examine how we are praying for them because these people are targeted by evil because if evil can get them to fail then they can get lesser believers to doubt and walk away from their faith.

No believer should take pride or joy in seeing someone like Mr. Gothard fail and fall. it is a sad day because a believer has erred and its implications can be far-reaching in the Christian world. We do need to find the right people to restore him back to spiritual health and not leave him languishing in sin slowly spiritually dying.

Now there is a difference between giving into temptation or not having victory in Jesus and simply walking away from the truth to embrace false teaching. The owner of the formerly fundie website is one of these and in his latest post laments his loss of Christian friendship.


Now I am not going to go through the whole article pointing out where he has erred in his thinking. I am just going to point out one major problem he has. He laments:

This isn’t because our Christian siblings aren’t nice people or incapable of being good friends. Rather, this is because somewhere along the line you and I were taught a horrible lie:

We were taught that we have to agree on everything in order to be in relationship with one another.

It seems this person ignores what was taught in 1st Corinthians 1:

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all [e]agree and that there be no [f]divisions among you, but that you be [g]made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. (NASB)

The owner of that website is desiring that believers disobey God simply because he wants to have Christian friends. But there is a difference between this person’s actions and Mr. Gothard’s. Mr. Gothard may have been a victim of ‘the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak’ mentality but the owner of that website willingly walked away from the truth and embraced false teaching.

He is creating the division and then demands that Christians who do not think like him or want to be exposed to false teaching accept him for who he is and what he believes. Yet that goes against biblical teaching:

14 Do not be [j]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with [k]Belial, or [l]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, (2. Cor. 6 NASB)

If a person calls himself a Christian yet does not accept or believe parts of the Bible then we need to question or be suspicious of their claims. Though we cannot be totally sure of their salvation status, we can think that they are not truly believers in God and there is no fellowship or anything in common with those who hold to alternatives to different passages of the Bible.

I am not talking about speaking in tongues differences but actual unbelief in the passages of the Bible and the acceptance of secular thinking instead. people who do not believe the Bible as written are not really believers unless they are new or immature Christians who are in need of proper instruction.

Here is what Paul says in Chapter 11 of 2nd Corinthians:

I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but [a]indeed you are bearing with me. For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if [b]one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the [c]most eminent apostles. But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, [d]and will continue to do so. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be [e]regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

There can really be no true friendship between true believers and those who have accepted false teaching and hold to that false message. True believers are to help these people in times of trouble but that does not men they can be friends and have fellowship with them.

There are 2 other parts of that person’s article that bothers me:


Now, that being said– I do think there’s a time to draw lines. For example, I recently deleted some Christians from Facebook for posting racist content. As a trans-racial family and a decent human being, I’m not willing to be in relationship with people who are racist. Sorry, but that’s one of my lines.

He doesn’t like it when Christians draws a line that affects him yet he willingly does it to others without shame. If he wants to be friends with those who are not the same as him, why is he willfully drawing a line between him and those who disagree with him?

This is an example of hypocrisy in action and not falling to temptation. he wants Christians to accept differences yet he cannot do the same with others. He loses his argument right here. He should not be condemning or complaining about true Christians who do not want to be his friend because he doesn’t believe what they believe. He needs to look in a mirror first.


Yet, Christian culture has become so “tribe exclusive” that my favorite, most trustworthy friends… are atheists. Why? Well, because they love me for me, want to be in a relationship simply for the relationship, and they’re not going to stop being my friend if my theology shifts.

If he is a Christian then why doesn’t he follow scripture where it says ‘do not walk in the counsel of the ungodly’ (Ps. 1:1) and why does he not walk under the guidance of the verse, ‘ friendship with the world is hostility towards God’ (James 4:4)?

He has stated in other articles that Christians should form partnerships with unbelievers, so if he is a Christian why is he encouraging people to disobey God? He can’t see the truth because his eyes have become deceived. He has willingly walked away from the truth and embraced deception.

Quite a different act from falling to temptation. When people walk away from the truth, they are not temporarily falling to a temptation, they are abandoning the truth in favor of sinful teaching and that makes their actions worse than those who are not strong enough to withstand the attacks of evil.

In each case true believers have instructions in the Bible on how to respond. If the person lamenting his lack of Christian friends takes a hard look at himself, he may see that the problem doesn’t lie with the true believers but with him and his beliefs.

If he is unwilling to change back to the truth then why would true Christians be friends with him? He will only drag them down to his level of unbelief not shore their faith up. I hope people will feel compassion for Mr. Gothard and others like him and take Christ’s way and not Mr. West’s for the latter casts out Christians in need and does not restore them.

****as an aside, if you want to read the whole article it is found here: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/28/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-placed-administrative-leave-following-abuse-allegations/

One thing that does need to be mentioned in defense of Mr. Gothard. Because sexual harassment in America has been defined as ‘how it is perceived and not how it is intended’ many sexual harassment complaints may not be truly justified. The misunderstanding of the receiver plays a large role in communication especially when it comes to male/female contact.

So do not let the words ‘sexually harassment’, ‘sexual abuse’ and other generalized distorted words influence your judgement wrongly.

Defending The Faith

Whenever someone presents an argument similar to the one linked below, there is a specific verse that defeats that argument. First the non-creation argument:


Young-earth creationists often adopt the dogmatic stance that they have unchanging truth, and that somehow the advances of science are something to be rejected rather than appreciated. And so, with some inspiration from Alasdair Crawfish on Facebook, I made the above image. Not all instances of failing to change or refusing change are praiseworthy.

Before we get to that verse, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The above argument is comparing apples with oranges. Technology has nothing to do with origins and to make a comparison like the one above is dishonest.

There is one verse that undermines all the arguments made against creation as recorded in Genesis 1.

in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised [b]long ages ago, (Titus 1 NASB)

Every argument against the Genesis 1 record is based upon the opposite  message that comes from that verse. Some use the theory that God had the biblical writers write in a manner where the ancient people could understand  and not record what He did exactly.

If God did that then he would have lied to the ancient people, which would have made that verse wrong and then Paul would have lied as well. Then if Paul lied he would have violated God’s command that he wrote himself in Colossians

[g]Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old [h]self with its evil practices, (ch. 3 NASB)

So if Paul lied about God and God lied about himself, how could we trust any other scripture in the Bible? It would make no sense to preach from any chapter of the Bible, including John 3:16-17, if God lied in Genesis and in Titus. Why preach from or believe a book that is full of lies?

It doesn’t matter which argument the OEC, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists or Evolutionists present, they all depend upon God lying and that cannot happen.

There is no reason to labor this point because it cannot be said any plainer than this: If God lied, you do not have a God to believe in or follow. You have another being in need of a savior.

God hasn’t lied in any part of the Bible thus if you believe John 3:16-17 then you can and need to believe Genesis 1. Both are the truth.

Do Unto Others- 3

Since writing this morning, another article has been brought to my attention on the issue of providing services to same-sex weddings.  This time I hope to address specific quotes in all the articles that pertain to this issue.

#1. Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/18/gays-lesbians-kansas-bill-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/)

When people talk about what the Bible says, it would be nice if they published the specific verses where they get their ideas from in order to see if the writer or speaker got the meaning of the verse correct.

The problem I see with this stance is that the homosexual community want the freedom to select their own preference yet refuse to allow others the same freedom. The verse the author of that quote referred to is very general and does not really give permission to participate in sin (Mark 10:45).

Nor does it mean one blindly does the bidding of another especially when it the bidding demands a contradiction to one’s beliefs.

#2 Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest church in Kansas, pointed out to me what all Christians should know: “Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.” This put Jesus at odds with religious leaders, who believed they were sullied by associating with the “wrong” people. (Ibid)

The problem with this point of view is that there is a large difference between healing, feeding, ministering to others and participating in a same-sex wedding or contributing to that ceremony.

One difference is the former acts are acts of kindness when people are in need and the latter is not. The latter is celebrating a sinful act and that is wrong. The Bible warns very clearly about calling sin or evil good but this is a point ignored by those who oppose those who refuse to contribute to the same-sex ceremony.

Most people today are not calling homosexuality sin anymore yet it remains sin and abnormal.

#3. Evangelical pastor Andy Stanley leads North Point Ministries, the second largest church in the U.S. He told me he finds it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He said, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.” (ibid)

Again, this pastor confuses the definitions of the word ‘serving’. There is a difference in helping people when they are hungry and thirsty and serving them cake at a same-sex reception or providing other services. Blurring the lines between the two is not doing justice to this issue or to believers.

It is distorting the facts to achieve a pre-determined result. Jesus dying for the world was not meant to be used as an excuse to participate in supporting sinful actions. He died that people would repent of their sins and turn to his ways. Don’t bring Jesus into this issue if you cannot do it correctly.

#5. Some claim it’s because marriage is so sacred. But double standards abound. Christian bakers don’t interrogate wedding clients to make sure their behavior comports with the Bible. If they did, they’d be out of business. Stanley said, “Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it’s adultery. So if (Christians) don’t have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.” (ibid)

The problem with this point is that the same-sex couple have not repented of their sin and do the wedding out of rebellion to God’s word and their selfish desires. They also make it very public their sexual preference so the baker or florist doesn’t have to ‘interrogate’ them to determine if they will accept the request for service.

Also there is more to the story to those comparisons than the speaker lets on and is being very literal in their presentation of them. I will stop there as the point I want to make is better served by a different quote.

#6. If these bills become law, we could see same-sex couples being denied service not just by photographers and florists, but also restaurants and hotels and pretty much anyone else who can tie their discrimination to a religious belief. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-apply-biblical-teachings-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.html)

This is pure fear mongering. It is painting the worst scenario possible and goes to the extreme to make a point in opposition to the bill in question. The bill may open this door but the difference between true religious objection and just using the law to discriminate is fairly easily to tell.

No law is going to be perfect and people do need to use common sense when applying any law to their daily lives. My problem is I do not think that denying someone services because of their sexual preference warrants the label-discrimination. We are talking about a spiritual problem here not a legal one where nationalities are involved.

#7. If you refuse to photograph one unbiblical wedding, you should refuse to photograph them all. (Ibid)

What is an unbiblical wedding? The Bible defines marriage in Genesis 2

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (NASB)

Any man or woman marrying an opposite sex mate is participating in a biblical wedding. Since all people are sinners, even Christians, then no one would be considered participating in a biblical wedding if sin was the only criteria. Same-sex weddings do not meet the biblical criteria for being a biblical wedding or marriage thus it is the only unbiblical wedding out there.

God does not prohibit thieves, liars, murders etc., from marriage thus if these sinners get married to an opposite sex mate then they are not doing anything wrong by marrying. The homosexual on the other hand is doing something wrong for they are violating God’s rules and continue to sin in their actions.

There is no permission granted to same-sex couples that allows them to marry and to participate in a same-sex marriage can be seen by the believer as supporting sin and calling evil good. Isaiah 5:20 warns of this

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (NASB)

Participation in same-sex ceremonies can be seen as violating God’s command and believers are not to violate God’s orders. Unbelievers and the homosexual community do not see homosexuality as sin thus they do not understand or refuse to accept the Christian reasoning on this issue.

The rest of that article simply demonstrates the inability of unbelievers to grasp the truth of what the Bible is saying and trying to use the bible to hammer believers into submission. Unbelievers just do not see where they go wrong because they are blind and deceived and do not  have the help of the Holy Spirit in seeing the truth.

#8. Jesus was a friend of sinners, indeed, but Jesus wasn’t a friend of sin. His infectious holiness led him to love and befriend sinners, but all of this was aimed toward a particular end. ( http://theaquilareport.com/of-consciences-and-cakes-a-response-to-kirsten-powers/?fb_action_ids=10201486340983839&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.Uwyu6Wr9hIw.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[281396238692274]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[%22.Uwyu6Wr9hIw.like%22])

The author of this article makes a very good point and I put the words in bold so that everyone could see them. Some of the other authors declare in their conclusions that Jesus would bake the cake but I disagree.

Jesus was a friend to sinners but repentance from their sins was a very important part of that friendship. Yes Jesus healed many who did not agree with him but again, healing someone’s sickness is not the same as baking a cake in support of sin.

The homosexual couple does not see themselves as sinners nor do they see themselves in need of repentance thus it is highly unlikely that Jesus would bake a cake for them. In fact, I think Jesus would call them to repent and the homosexual couple would walk away in a huff, angry that their selfish, spoiled ways were not endorsed by Jesus.

Jesus would not support something that is an abomination to his Father. That would be sin and ruin Jesus mission to earth.

#9. The law allowed the soldier to demand from them a mile, no more. Jesus told his followers to walk two. ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/02/walking-the-extra-mile-with-pastries-for-gay-people.html)

Here is another author who misuses scripture to condone participating in some activity a believer deems to be wrong. Carrying a pack was not considered sin by God, nor was it condemned by God. Also, the person carrying he pack is not supporting or participating in the Roman’s evil deeds or ideology. It is merely carrying a pack.

The status of this situation is vastly different from the one concerning same-sex marriage. If one wants to go the extra mile with a homosexual then they can take care of them when they are sick, feed them when they are hungry but it does not mean one has to violate their faith and beliefs and support a sinful act or participate in one.

#10. And I think that refusing to serve gay and lesbian people, and advancing legislation that denies others their civil liberties in response to perceived threats to our own, does irreparable damage to our witness as Christians and leaves a whole group of people feeling like second-class citizens, not only in our country, but also in the Kingdom. (Ibid)

Civil liberties is a two-way street. What I can see by the legal actions taken against the Christian businesses is a violation and denial of the Christian’s civil liberties. They are being forced to participate in something against their will, all because one group of people will not simply move on to the next business in the line.

No there is no ‘irreparable damage’ done to the cause of Christ because there is no guarantee that participation by Christians in a same-sex ceremony will result in repentance by the same-sex couple.

One does not change their faith to appease those who have no  intention or hope of repenting and following that faith. Nor does the refusal of services render the other party into second class status. Free choice and preference applies equally to all sides of the issue.

If the homosexual couple wants to have freedom to reject heterosexual unions then they must allow heterosexual people to reject participation in their homosexual activities. The people being made into second class citizens are those who are being forced, through punitive threats and measures, to provide service to an activity they do not wish to be a part of.

From what I have read, none of these people, the florist, the baker, and the photographer, turned away homosexual customers and freely provided service to them thus they were not discriminating against the same-sex group. They just drew a line at participating in a sinful activity that God hates. They should be allowed that freedom to draw the line at what activities they would like to be a part.

They are not discriminating against the homosexual community but saying ‘no’ to certain activities they do not agree with. Yet, many people are blinded on this issue and refuse to draw a distinction between the two as now they have ammunition to attack Christians and possibly make financial gain.

The legal bullying carried out by the homosexual community does not help their cause as they are the ones who look like the bad guy not the opposing businesses.

#11. There may be second-class citizens in the U.S. and in Uganda and in Russia, but there should be no second-class citizens in the Kingdom. (ibid)

Here is another person who thinks that homosexuals are part of God’s kingdom. Even though God has clearly stated that homosexuals will not see heaven.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (1 Cor. 6:9)

Unless the homosexual repents of their sins and gives up the practice of homosexuality, they are not part of the kingdom of God. They are not Christian. God’s rules are very clear on this.

#12. I support marriage equality and affirm my gay and lesbian friends who want to commit themselves to another person for life.  But even if I didn’t,(Ibid)

The word ‘commitment’ is used a lot to justify support for same-sex marriage but commitment is not what defines love or marriage. Nor does it justify supporting a same-sex union. The words ‘marriage equality’ are also used to justify allowing sinful practices to be openly performed but there is no marriage inequality by not allowing same-sex partners access to marriage.

Marriage is not part of the homosexual lifestyle. There is no biblical or historical foundation for same-sex couples to marry. There is no blessing from God on their union. Besides, marriage is open to the homosexual community they just refuse to participate correctly and demand their own way.

They are not getting married, they are perverting marriage. Homosexuals cannot become one with a same-sex partner thus they cannot even fulfill even one aspect of true marriage. There is no real equality because God set up marriage to be one way and one way only.

one final quote in conclusion:

Because over and beyond my beliefs regarding homosexuality is my most deeply-held conviction that I am called to love my neighbor as myself…even if it costs me something, even if it means walking a second mile. (Ibid)

Loving one’s neighbor does not mean one supports and accepts sin or disobeys God. Loving one’s neighbor does not mean one has to participate in same-sex ceremonies. What it is going to cost that person is their salvation because God is not mocked, sin is sin no matter what groups and governments say and woe to them who support sin.

Do Unto Others- 2

Since the last piece was written last night, 3 more articles have appeared upon the same-sex cake baking issue bringing up points that need to be addressed–



One of the first thoughts I had when I read these articles was of the defense used by the Nazi leaders and prison camp officers–we were only following orders.  The allied side did not and do not accept such a defense as they continue to wage war on 90-year-old men who were once part of the Nazi army.

These men are sentenced for crimes they may or may not have committed and if they did, they had orders from their superiors to do so or punitive action would be taken against them.

In this issue we see what happens when people do not follow the ‘orders’ from superiors. By refusing to service same-sex weddings, these people are bullied, sued, abused and could lose their freedom as well as their businesses. The allied prosecutors preached to the captured Nazis that they had freedom to counter the orders based upon moral grounds yet when the tables are turned we see that making moral choices in counter to ‘orders’ is only approved by certain people if it is in accordance to their accepted ideas.

Real morality plays no role in the decision-making process. What we see in this issue is a group of people being given ‘power’ via the courts & the governments to legally bully those who disagree with them, even though those who refuse service do so upon moral conviction.

The second thing that came to mind is where are the leaders of the homosexual community using the supposed moral voice they claim they have by their claim to be Christian?  Why are they NOT telling their people to let it go and go to another more friendly business for their needs?

This silence is exposing their lack of Christian character and displays to all that there is nothing of God  and Jesus in their sexual preference. Then we must ask, why aren’t the LBGT groups not telling their people do ‘turn the other cheek’ like Jesus commanded?

It seems that now that they have a taste of power, their supposed ‘Christian’ faith is thrown out the window in favor of being non-Christian bullies. Their silence tells us everything we need to know about the homosexual community.

The third thing we see in these articles is that everyone is demanding that the Christian businesses act like the version of Christianity they want to see and not as Jesus wants them to act.

People who are not believers all have their own ideas of what Christianity is and they want that applied to every issue and not the true teachings of Christianity. The Christian people involved in this issue have different rules to follow and they are God’s rules not man’s and as the Bible says ‘we are to obey God rather than man.’

If God has led these businesses to not participate in the same-sex ceremonies then they cannot do so. If there are weaker Christians around who will stumble in their faith if they participate in these affairs then they should not do so BUT the secular world only looks at those scriptures they want to and ignore the rest.

The people being unfair, unjust, and hypocritical are those forcing the Christians to participate or else. They are saying ‘you do as we want not as your God wants’ and that is wrong.

Fourth, the opponents to the Christian businesses distort the reality of what is really taking place. They call it discrimination or implementation of Jim Crow laws or other nasty names but in reality the bills are being written to protect people from the bullies who use the courts and governments to obtain their selfish, spoiled ways.

These laws are being written to protect Christian people from the abuse and retribution that comes from those who claim to be Christian yet cannot practice any of Jesus’ teachings. The homosexual community claims that God loves them but they forget what God said,

Why do you call me Lord but do not do the things I say? (Luke 6:46 NASB)


If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15 NASB)

If the homosexual community were Christian and if they loved God, they would not be using the courts or the governments to bully those who disagree with them into submission. They would not force others to participate in ceremonies against their will.

Finally, this one quote which bothers me a lot. it comes from the 3rd link above:

What would Jesus do? He would probably not only bake the cake, but would attend the wedding.(McGrath)

Really? Why would Jesus bake a cake and attend a ceremony involving two people who are called an abomination by his father? We have NO NT passage that has Jesus speaking favorably about homosexuality, why would he participate in those type of nuptials?

We only have the example of one wedding in the Bible so it would be presumptuous to say Jesus would disobey his father and support same-sex unions. Here McGrath is using Jesus to force Christians to do his will not God’s.

It is unfair to call these proposed state bills ‘Jim Crow Laws for homosexuals’ because those who refused service to the coloreds did not face any legal or governmental backlash as Christians do today when they refuse the requests made by homosexuals.

It is unfair to use the remarriage of divorced people or the ceremonies of other religions as evidence to force Christians to cater to the selfish desires of the homosexual. Those using those examples do not know if the wedding parties were turned down by Christians or not and only succeeded obtaining the services they needed by begging till someone caved.

Those people do not complain to the government or use the courts to get their way like the homosexual does. They usually just go to another business who will help them. it is a lesson the homosexual community has yet to learn. They feel everyone must accept their preference and treat them as normal and that is just impossible.

The blame for this whole mess lies with the homosexual community as they derive some pleasure in forcing others to act against their wills and faith. It is the homosexual who is making a mountain out of a molehill and it is they who should be told ‘no’ not the Christian businesses.

These situations would have been handle much better if the courts and government officials simply told the homosexual community to let it go and seek out a friendly proprietor. Then lives of some people would not be ruined over the selfish and spoiled desires of a few.

Do Unto Others

This post is a continued examination of the proposed Arizona bill that allows religious people to turn down requests by homosexuals. It will look at the following article found over at Formerly Fundie


If that article does anything, it provides a good example of how those who do not believe  do not have the truth nor know what scripture is really saying. John 14:15-17 lays this out quite clearly and the author of that post demonstrates the Bible’s truthfulness.

#1. The problem that Powers and Merritt point out, is how a refusal to provide products or services for a same sex wedding typically require an incredible amount of biblical picking and choosing, combined with a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

I would ask, how is it hypocritical? First, the people originating this bill are politicians not the church. Politicians are seeking relief for those Christians who are bullied by the homosexual community who refuse to take no for an answer or turn the other cheek.

Second, the bill is not requiring Christians to refuse the requests. Christians are still free to provide those services if they are asked and feel they can do so. All the bill does is protect those people who do not feel comfortable participating in a same-sex ceremony.

Third, what verses are being cherry picked? There is no biblical  command to participate in any marriage ceremony so what verses are being ignored and what verses are being used to avoid christian duty? The author needs more specifics here.

#2. However, it was actually a “Christian” wedding that ultimately helped me decide how I would navigate this issue when the time came.

It was a beautiful day when two believing Christians married before God by a member of their clergy, surrounded by their family and friends. Everything met the Christian stamp of approval… until the reception.

As I looked throughout the room at the drunken debauchery taking place on the dance floor, I turned to my assistant (also a Christian) and said:

The first problem I have with this is how is the author defining the word ‘Christian.’ The second problem is his definition of the words ‘drunken debauchery.’ His readers only have his word on what took place and how do we know he is not exaggerating what took place?

There is also another major problem with his ‘experience.’ How does he know if all the people involved in the wedding are actually christian? People are at different stages of the Christian faith and they are not going to act like Jesus all the time every time. It is just impossible.

The author of that post made a very bad judgment and thinks he is being hypocritical. But how could he come to that conclusion as with that wedding, he had no advanced knowledge of any sin being evident in the reception whereas in a same-sex wedding, he has foreknowledge that sin is going to take place.

There is no comparison between the two events.  One can use the proceedings of the heterosexual wedding to turn down future requests by that family and remain unhypocritical but to say that the events of that wedding, which he had no knowledge of makes him hypocritical if he turns down a same-sex request is absurd.

#3. In the end, I was having a hard time justifying same sex couples as being the only group of people I wouldn’t serve– thankfully, I never did turn any of them away.

If people feel they have permission from God to participate in a same-sex ceremony then they shouldn’t worry about it. Here it looks like he did not go to God for guidance in how to deal with this problem. He may feel it is okay for him to do that but that position does not allow him to say that the Arizona bill is not needed.

Others do not have that permission or feel that they can participate in such a ceremony are being left vulnerable to abuse and bullying by those who side with the homosexual community and we need to ask, is it hypocritical to leave your fellow Christian in danger because they do not agree with your stance?

Hypocrisy goes in several directions not just in one. Believers have a duty to protect each other and be true to their faith when dealing with others. There is more to the picture than just the same-sex participants and to attack fellow Christians and to allow them to be abused by sinners is not a Christian thing to do.

#4. These religious freedom laws are actually Un-Christian, because they are positioned against the central teaching of the New Testament: love your enemies.

Now we are getting into the area that demonstrates how those who do not believe do not understand the Bible or have the truth. Refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony is not withholding love. It is a personal preference which has a lot of underlying emotions an beliefs that influence the decision.

Refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony is also not displaying hatred. Sometimes people just do not want to be involved and they should not be forced or coerced into participating. The homosexual is not the only person with freedom of choice.

A person who goes into business for themselves seek more freedom in their business decisions. Something they do not have when they work for someone else. That freedom should not be taken away simply because their faith leads them to turn down certain requests stemming from sexual preferences.

Does this mean that Christians must cater heterosexual orgies simply because they are in business even though that sexual practice goes against their faith? This is something the author of that article doesn’t realize; it isn’t just about the homosexual desires but all people’s desires who run counter to biblical teaching.

#5. “If your enemy is hungry, give them something to eat. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.” Romans 12:20, Prov. 25:21

The biblical teaching? Bake their cake. Take their photographs. Let them stay at your hotel. Love them generously!

This verse does not apply to same-sex ceremonies but this is the convoluted type of thinking the author of that article has. The homosexual couples are not hungry, they are not thirsty and they are not in need. They are trying to mock God and that makes a big difference in deciding to participate in the ceremony or not.

He also does not understand biblical love for sinners. Love doesn’t always approve of other people’s actions nor does it blindly support them. I will again say that it is a personal choice of the Christian business owner if they want to get involved or not. Of course they would need strong guidance from God on this issue.

We do not toss out all the scriptures and just use the ones on ‘love’. That is cherry picking by the author of that article. He ignores other scriptures in order to justify his support of sin.

If the homosexual was actually hungry or thirsty or in real need of help, then we can help them but a wedding ceremony does not meet the biblical criteria for need.

#6. Treating our gay brothers and sisters with less love than we’re commanded to treat people who are trying to murder us, is un-Christian.

Here the author of that piece makes his biggest mistake. Unrepentant homosexuals are not our brothers and sisters. They are still in the clutches of evil and practice evil. They have nothing of God in them.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1 NASB)

Unless the homosexual has repented of their sins and given up their homosexuality, they are not Christians. God has not changed the status of the homosexual or the practice of homosexuality no matter how hard people try to change the words and meanings of the biblical passages speaking against them.

The author of that article continues on in distorting how scripture is to be applied and to what situation. He wants to elevate a ceremony of happiness to the level of real need and it just doesn’t work.

If he wants to use scripture and the words of Jesus, he needs to point out in the Bible where Jesus attended and helped out at a same-sex wedding ceremony; then gave instructions to do the same. To take verses applying to one difficult situation where no one else is around to help and apply them to a happy occasion where the participants are surrounded by supporters, then demands that the christian join in, is heresy at its best and a bad attempt to use scripture to justify sinning.

The only cherry picking I see is being done on the part of the author of that post as he looks for scriptural support for his bad thinking. What makes that author hypocritical is would he have the same attitude towards murders and rapists who want to have him photograph their ceremonies?

Would he think their sins were great enough that he could justify refusing to participate and refuse to demand that other believers participate? What makes the homosexual sin so special that the author feels he can demand that Christians participate and violate their beliefs? Or leave them unprotected from the abuse that will follow when the believer refuses?

Love is not a blanket permission slip that allows us to ignore the rest of what the Bible teaches. Love is not an excuse to support or participate in sin.

31 [r]Treat others the same way you want [s]them to treat you.

This verse does not mean one cannot refuse a request when the request may violate one’s belief . believers need to consider Romans 14 in their decision to participate in same-sex ceremonies because the bigger picture includes weaker believers who may not survive seeing other believers participate in a ceremony where sin is at the center of attention.

But this is the thing with those who no longer believe or do not believe Jesus. They ignore these passages in their haste to ‘be cool’ or ‘inclusive’ or disobedient to God. They only want the scriptures that tell them what they want to hear and that is wrong.

For me I doubt I would participate in a same-sex ceremony because I disagree with it and it would be hypocritical of me to participate when I have stated publicly that I have disagreed with such practices. It would not be hypocritical of me to refuse their request. One has to be consistent with their faith as long as they have the truth guiding them and the author of that article has it backwards and is wrong.