Christian Apologists For Evil

Yes, there are such creatures. Of course we should really refer to them as “professing believers” since no true disciple of Jesus Christ would dare side with the enemies of the gospel and against biblical truth. But regrettably we find this happening all the time.

Normally I don’t waste time with these deluded, deceived dunces. Many are simply trolls and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Others may be sincere and well meaning, but they are still sincerely wrong and taking a whole lot of people with them away from God and into the devil’s camp.

ssm 27So I need to discern when it is worth engaging with these folks and when it is best to just ignore them altogether. Another clear cut example of deceived Christians siding with sin and siding against God and his word has recently appeared.

At first I thought I would just overlook it, but since it regrettably is getting a wide airing, and causing even more people to be led astray, I have decided to speak to it briefly. But as I say, I still really hate to even draw any attention to such foolish and harmful articles.

Indeed, when the very words of Christ are so miserably twisted and tortured to serve an evil agenda, this really is the height of deception. This woman needs to repent and get right with God. I refer to someone I never heard of before, Jessica Kantrowitz.

Her piece, “Bake for them two” is of course about two things: the storm over the Christian bakers being persecuted by homosexual militants, and the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:41: “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”

Let me cut to the quick: despite all her convoluted verbal waffling here, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with what she is disingenuously trying to use it for. The number one rule of biblical interpretation is to study a passage in its context.

And what all Christians are called to do is properly exegete a passage (seek to discover the author’s original intent and meaning), and never commit the hermeneutical sin of eisegesis (reading into a passage something that was never there).

The context of this verse is Matt. 5:38-48 in which Jesus deals with responding to enemies, and particularly personal insults. It is about how individual believers should respond to insults and the like. Thus one can offer the person insulting you the other cheek, after he has slapped the first one.

But I speak to all this in detail elsewhere. See here for example: billmuehlenberg.com/2011/04/20/difficult-bible-passages-matthew-539/

This passage has nothing to do with social ethics, and how believers should interact with the state. That is dealt with in other parts of the Bible of course. And the case of the Christian cake makers, like that of the Christian florist, the Christian pizza shop owner, and so on, is all about the rights of Christians to be able to run their own small business without being forced to violate their own Christian consciences.

So it has nothing at all to do with turning the other cheek or walking a second mile. This is all about religious freedom, and standing up to the pink mafia who have declared war on all Christians and Christian institutions which dare to stand up for biblical truth on the issues of sexuality and marriage, and will not bow the knee to their coercive and immoral agenda.

The simple truth is, a Christian cake maker should no more be forced to bake a cake for a sinful homosexual wedding, than a Black cake maker should be forced to bake a cake for a KKK celebration. Nor should a Jewish cake maker be forced to bake a cake for a neo-Nazi fundraiser.

BTW, I am not being discriminatory (or unloving or unChristlike) here in the least. I actually also believe it is acceptable for a homosexual cake maker to not be forced to cater for a Christian wedding either, if he does not want to. So once again, this is all about the gaystapo attacking Christians and ramming down their throats the militant homosexual agenda.

Sorry Jessica, but a big fail here – please go to the back of the class. And of course this gal lets the cat out of the bag early on when she says there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. As she puts it, “If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself)…”

That should have sent red lights flashing from the very outset, and alerted everyone to the fact that on this issue she has moved into apostasy, and is not to be listened to at all. She is simply being a mouthpiece for the spirit of the age, and not God Almighty, who has perfectly and unequivocally revealed himself on this issue.

Now I have been aware of at least two other articles critiquing this foolishness. I have not looked at them carefully, but have now just done so. Parts of each are worth quoting here as well. Eric Teetsel states in part:

What then is a Christian’s obligation? First, as has already been made clear from the examples of Jesus, such interaction is a context for evangelism. Engaging with sinners without the goal of bringing them to a place of repentance is meaningless. The Apostle Paul in Galatians 6 writes, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” James teaches, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20) Perhaps I am cynical, but I find it highly unlikely that most of those who argue Christians ought to provide services for same-sex weddings are eager to use such circumstances – or any other circumstance – to evangelize homosexuals about their sin. Kantrowitz, who doesn’t believe homosexuality is immoral, certainly isn’t!
Second, Christians who participate in such conduct must heed the admonition to avoid causing weaker Christians to stumble. In 1 Corinthians 8:9 Paul warns, “But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.” Is there any doubt that the willingness of some Christians to participate in the celebration of sin while personally maintaining a biblical position on homosexuality has caused confusion in the Body? The minimum standard here is clear: if in the specific context of an interpersonal relationship of evangelism a Christian can in good conscience provide a service for a same-sex wedding they must keep their mouth shut about doing so.

And Douglas Wilson minces no words when he says this:

Back in the day, everyone who saw that civilian carrying the bag would know that the civilian had been pressed into service, and further, there is no sin involved in carrying a bag. The law allowed the Roman soldier to make someone carry his pack for a mile, no more. When the follower of Christ went the second mile, this was a means of assuming the center, taking control of the situation.
When Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, He was doing precisely this sort of thing. This armed entourage came out to arrest Him, and Jesus quietly assumed command of it. What Jesus was teaching His disciples was a way — everything else being equal — of assuming the center. When Jesus stood before Pilate, bound and beaten, He was in control of the situation, and Pilate was not. Pilate was the one who got scared.
But nobody thinks that this teaching of Christ means that there is never a point of simple resistance. For example, Jesus simply refused to answer Herod at all. Herod wanted Jesus to do a trick. Why didn’t Jesus apply His own teaching here and do two tricks?
Before counting how many, one or two, we need to reflect for a moment on the nature of the thing being demanded.
If someone demands that you deny Christ, your duty is not to deny the Lord twice. By this reasoning, Peter would have been an exceptional disciple the night of Christ’s betrayal. He denied Him three times! No one believes that if Roman law required a pinch of incense be offered to the genius of the emperor then your religious duty before God would be to offer two pinches, or better yet, a fistful. And who thinks that when the sackbut sounded in ancient Babylon, the duty of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was to starting bobbing up and down like crazy, falling down before the great image more than anyone else there.
Who would pay any attention to a meme that showed a young Quaker walking into boot camp? “And if they conscript you for four years, sign up for an extra four-year hitch.”
As I have already written, this issue is entirely and completely over a demand for approval. The homo-jihad is not demanding that we agree to function in the same economy together with them. We are more than willing to do that. Rather, they are demanding — not suggesting — that identification of their perversion with sin be made against the law. This includes everyone, everywhere, and it includes pulpits. So when they say “that would never happen,” it should be pointed out that Christians are starting to get smart. We don’t believe anything you say anymore.
So they are demanding that on such occasions where our participation in this same economy becomes tantamount to approval of the sin, and consequently a violation of our conscience, that we be required to violate our conscience. Their lusts trump our conscience.

Exactly. But this is all so basic and elementary that it amazes me that we have to restate the obvious. How can anyone who claims to be a Christian get things so appallingly wrong? Well, we know the answer to that. The world has done a great job of squeezing far too many undiscerning and gullible believers into its mould, and there is a devil ever on the move to take captive those who will not stand squarely and resolutely on the Word of God.

In conclusion, one simply has to ask young Jessica a few questions:

If a group of Satanists ask you for a cake, will you make them two instead?
If a group of paedophiles ask you for a cake, will you make them two instead?
If a group of arsonists ask you for a cake, will you make them two instead?
If a group of polyamorists ask you for a cake, will you make them two instead?
If a group of IS jihadists ask you for a cake, will you make them two instead?

The really frightening thing is this: Why do I suspect that she would say yes to some, if not all, of these requests?

tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/
www.patheos.com/blogs/manhattanproject/2015/04/bake-for-them-two-or-walk-with-the-few/
dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/deny-him-seventy-times-seven.html

[1877 words]

14 Replies to “Christian Apologists For Evil”

  1. Why don’t we apply the principle to some Lefty issues?

    If the government turns back a boat to Indonesia, our Jesus says turn back two!

    If the government shuts down a remote indigenous community, our Jesus says shut down two!

    If the government sends 1000 troops to fight the war in Iraq, our Jesus says send 2000!

    If the government gives $1 million in subsidy to the coal industry, our Jesus says, give them $2 million!

    If the government cuts foreign aid by $1bn, our Jesus says, cut it by $2bn!

    If the government builds a pulp mill, our Jesus says, build two!

  2. Same-sex marriage may not be immoral if the couple remains completely platonic in their relationship, but it is still ridiculous, a contradiction in terms and against the whole concept of what marriage is. And probably a few other things.

    Keep informing us Bill.

  3. I have been reading through the comments on her blog and I’m shocked at the number of people (can I call them Christians? Not sure) who are praising her for this post. What’s that scripture about calling good evil and evil good?
    However, one of her readers posted a great reply. Zach wrote “Jesus was a carpenter. If somebody hired him to carve an idol, don’t you think he could have declined but still treated the person with love and respect?”
    Perfect response, I think.
    Thanks again Bill.

  4. Personally I would’ve written that last part a little differently lest it be open to the misinterpretation that it is right to reject people rather than specifically the acts or beliefs some wish to promote or hold an event for. In the case of Baronelle Stutzman, the two men concerned were long-time customers of hers; it was only a particular specific request that she wouldn’t agree to.

    Here’s my version:

    If someone asks you to rape someone.
    Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
    If someone asks you to murder someone.
    Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
    If someone asks you to burn down someone’s business
    Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
    If someone asks you to blaspheme the name of God once
    Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”
    etc. etc.

    My two cents. (Or four cents.) I do like Jereth’s versions a great deal.

    Jessica’s post is terribly shoddy thinking, but what alarms me more is the amount of people – professing Christians apparently, many of them – commenting who think it’s brilliant. That’s quite disturbing. Any believer in Jesus should be able to spot her argument’s fatal flaw in a second. Or two.

  5. Thanks Mark. Yes the issue here is really about the right of a person to not have to be forced to cater for or provide services to particular events or activities which they cannot support in good conscience.

  6. From my reading of gay revisionist theology Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.. However Jessica seems to find within the gospels the teaching that Jesus never discussed homosexuality, except in the case of gay wedding cakes.. In which case he did speak about homosexuality.. Or something..
    Smells to me like a vacuous leftist attempt at having your hippie-hermeneutical hash brownie and eating it too??

  7. … and if someone compels you to murder one person you should murder two….???

    I think the Devil is running out of ammo.

  8. Of course Christ is talking about compelling virtue. Its hardly loving for someone to be forced to do something for someone else. Just as it isn’t loving when the state takes half of my wage to give to the needy. But this only makes sense when we are talking about virtue. And homosexuality is hardly a virtue.

    An apt comparison with this case would be those passages telling God’s people not to abstain from engaging in what the pagans but doubling down and doing twice as much! Don’t come out from among them but double down and out do them!

  9. Excellent as always.
    My blog story (check google) on a similar theme is called: ‘Faith in Action, A great Easter Story.’
    This is from the US where the silent majority fought back magnificently.

  10. Alarming to learn that Jessica has been awarded a Master of Divinity degree. And from Gordon-Conwell Seminary to boot! She should know better! Perhaps she paid little attention during Biblical hermeneutics classes.

  11. Indeed if someone tells you that the sun is the moon, or that cats are dogs, or the King has beautiful clothes, when he is stark naked, then by all means go the second mile, play the game, but be consistent, don’t give them little bits of reality here and little bits of virtual reality there. If the they have the right to redefine reality, then in the name of equality, we all have the right to define reality however we wish. Send them two pieces of paper with the word, “wedding cake” on it. To me that is a wedding cake and I dare you to say it is not.

    David Skinner UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: