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.
So 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: https://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?