Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Is Jesus Against Kooky Gay Guys?

A disagreement with Red State's Erick Erickson.

by
Andrew Klavan

Bio

August 2, 2013 - 10:40 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page
He who is without sin is fabulous!

He who is without sin is fabulous!

As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds might say:  asking the important questions!

The reason it comes up:  a really interesting post from Erick Erickson at RedState.com. I like RedState and admire Erickson. He’s smart, fearless and he writes well. And I greatly enjoyed the July 30 essay titled “For Jesus. The World Against Me,” in which he rightly took liberal Christian Rachel Held Evans to task for stereotyping more conservative Christians as anti-science or too patriotic. Erickson writes:

I don’t know a Christian who is anti-science. Christians haven’t suddenly declared science anti-God, but the left has declared God and Christians anti-science. I don’t know a church that has declared allegiance to a political party or a single nation. But I know the left parodies evangelicals that way. In fact, through Rachel Held Evans’ entire list, what she is admitting is that she has embraced the secular left’s parody of evangelical churches to proclaim her own style and mode of worship and faith superior. She’s embraced the loud voices of a few and conflated them to the quiet voices of the many in the evangelical community committed to saving souls.

Just because the left and media attack evangelical churches for these things does not make them so. From Archbishop Chaput in the Catholic Church to Mark Driscoll to Franklin Graham to John Piper to Timothy Keller to Rich Warren to Andy Stanley to Lois Giglio to Al Mohler to my own preacher — they all preach Jesus. They don’t preach America because they’re just passing through it on the way to real life. But they do preach the Jesus who is, not the Jesus the world wishes for.

Great stuff, all true. And Erickson’s main point is also true:  being “for Jesus” sometimes means standing against what the world deems good and wise, even when the world is ever-so-sure it’s right.

But then Erickson gives an example:

Christians stand for Jesus. When demanded by the world to look at a dude in a leather g-string, rainbow afro wig, and fairy wings glued to his back dancing down the street claiming he’s got pride and accept it as just another form of normal, well, yeah, we’re for Jesus so we’re against that. Rachel Held Evans, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and the like want to accommodate that. Jesus wouldn’t. We shouldn’t.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I don’t think Jesus is actually concerned with maintaining society’s norms

Yes and no. Unfortunately, the author doesn't seem to appreciate exactly who Jesus is and what He did, does, and taught. On the one hand, it is true that our salvation doesn't depend on societal norms; it depends on faith in Jesus. Jesus doesn't care if you're German, African, or Chinese; he doesn't care if you are male or female; he doesn't care if you're young or old. Salvation is freely open to all.

On the other hand, how you act is important, as James makes it abundantly clear in his epistle, and Paul in several of his, your actions toward others demonstrate your faith. You are enjoined to keep from committing any act that may cause another to lose his faith.

In addition, while Christians are free from the Jewish national and ceremonial laws, we are most definitely not free from the natural law, epitomized by the 10 Commandments. These are the rules laid down by God for a well ordered society. Sexual deviancy - indeed any sexual act outside of (a heterosexual) marriage - is most definitely forbidden; primarily because it works to destroy the family.

So, what would Jesus say to the kooky gay guy? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” and then, if the man repented: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Klavan,

I think you have glossed over what Erickson actually wrote about the hypothetical gay pride activist. He wrote that because of Jesus, he was unwilling to "accept it as just another form of normal." This has nothing to do with judging the state of another man's soul, but rather to bear witness to the truth of the objective reality of sin. Recall that after saving the woman caught in adultery from her persecutors, Jesus did not say to her, "Those hypocrites had no right to condemn your lifestyle choice," but rather, "Go and sin no more." The modern gay rights movement is no longer about decriminalizing consensual, victimless behavior, but rather it is about using the coercive power of the state to socially engineer a population that will approve, not tolerate--approve, said behavior. It is about forcing us to call good evil and call evil good. For too long, we have let the moral relativists misuse Matt. 7:3-5 to silence any opposition to normalizing sin. Erickson is correct on this one.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...but he isn't hurting anybody..." he certainly is. his entire goal at this point is to insult and degrade those he disagrees with. a point of view that built the place that allows him to act like a jackass. if what he is doing is trivial, it is harmless for him to not do it. therefore, you cannot tell the offended that they aren't hurt.

i have no dog in this fight, i'm an atheist. it seems to me that Erickson is right.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (50)
All Comments   (50)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If Looking for gorgeous Male and female strippers in Sydney Book Our professional topless male And Female stripper performers for a truly unforgettable experience
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Who is the real Jesus? Find out for yourself: http://goo.gl/HVdUi
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:9-14

Is Jesus against the kooky gay guy? Of course not. He's for him like everyone else; he came to save him. Is the kooky gay guy a sinner? Of course he is, just like Erickson and me and everyone else. If me, Erik Erickson, and the kooky gay guy all go to Jesus, who will he have the harsh language for? Who will be called a viper or an open grave? The ones secure in their own righteousness.

It is very possible that if the kooky gay guy goes to Jesus and Jesus tells him there's something wrong with his behavior, the KGG will justify himself with his impeccable record of voting Democrat and want to nail Jesus to the cross again as a homophobe; and no amount of being kooky and adorable will save him then. But I think there's a very real chance that he, like many tax collectors and prostitutes before him, will repent and be saved where others who sin less will cling to their own insufficient righteousness and be damned.

But that's not exactly to Erickson's point. He says, "When demanded by the world to look at a dude in a leather g-string, rainbow afro wig, and fairy wings glued to his back dancing down the street claiming he’s got pride and accept it as just another form of normal, well, yeah, we’re for Jesus so we’re against that. Rachel Held Evans, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and the like want to accommodate that. Jesus wouldn’t. We shouldn’t."

Jesus wouldn't 'accommodate' that? What does that mean? Jesus didn't scourge the red light district, or destroy the corrupt tax collection system. Treating those as 'normal' is a pretty good description of what He in fact did. He came to redeem a fallen world, a world that was universally damned, a world where no one and nothing was perfect enough to be part of a perfect Heaven. Not to redeem the abnormal parts of a world where normal was good enough. Normal is fallen; if Erickson is forgetting that, then it could be that Erickson's standards are slipping more than the liberal Christians' are.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
You forget or choose to ignore the fact that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go forth and sin no more. He also cleared the temple of those corrupt tax collectors and priests. He convicted Zacchaeus enough to pay back 4 x what he had stolen from others in taxes. A repentant man who confesses his sin and asks for forgiveness is one thing. A defiant sinner who defies the Word of God and demands acceptance is another.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Didn't click the "Show More" link I guess? I didn't forget or ignore or fail to mention it. You're right about the sin, and it's an important point which I make in the third paragraph. The points I thought were my best ones where I tie the two Biblical attitudes together from a Biblical perspective are hidden.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago said he expected his successor to die in prison and his successor to be murdered. He was onto something that the Church would be harassed. I just see it as more likely that the church will be marginalized by creeps like Holder at the Justice Department via tax policy and the regulatory state.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Their next move will be to sue churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples or condemn homosexuality as a sin. The brainwashed idiots who latch onto the political movement because it enables them to dance half naked in public to that horrible techno music will not be as kind hearted as Mr. Klaven. They will happily push the church to underground status.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm with my brother Drew on this one.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Klavan;
But none of these things is particularly my business. And while I can see where Jesus might want to have a chat with him about any or all of them, before I start thinking too much about what that chat might entail, I would do well to remember a question Jesus asked me one time: “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” In other words, while I may not be wearing my rainbow Afro wig (I know I left it around here somewhere), I can’t help feeling I have unhelpful spiritual habits of my own that I could usefully look at before I trouble my sinful head with this dude’s."

Look to the Gospel of Luke.

Two thieves crucified with Jesus. One accepted his punishment as just, repudiated his sins, and asked that Jesus remember him.

The other thief asked Jesus why he didn't just play the "Miracle Card".

Jesus responded to the penitent thief, and assured him that he would be with Jesus in the Heavenly Father's house.

The unrepentant thief was ignored.

And in neither case did Jesus say a word about whether the thives should or should not have been crucified.

You behave in a way that breaks Man's Law, and you suffer Man's punishment.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
You will be made to care. That is part of Erickson's point. The militant homosexual agenda will not allow you to ignore them any longer. That boat has sailed. You will either endorse and promote their behavior or you will be labeled a bigot and targeted by the government for hate speech.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mr. Klavan's interpretation of Matthew 7:1-5 is wrong. The Matthew passage refers to hypocritical judgments. Note that is in v. 5 that Jesus calls the listen to remove the plank from his eye and then help his brother remove the speck from his. Jesus tells the Christian to judge sin in Matthew 16:19 and 18:15-18. The whole book of 1 Corinthians deals with a church that refuses to judge the sexual immorality in their midst. In numerous passages in that letter, Paul warns the church to either judge those members or he would come and do it. We are never called to be tolerant of sin. Tolerance of sin is not a Christian virtue.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is my response, written as a diary at RedState, to Senator Portman and his recent decision to support homosexual marriage.

http://www.redstate.com/kipling/2013/03/15/senator-portman-homosexual-marriage-and-the-death-of-principle/
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think the important point is that gay activists and other victim-baiting leftists would SAY that Jesus was against the "kook" -- that he was a "homophobe" hater -- if Jesus told him at some point to go and sin no more.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All