Monday, March 5, 2018

It's not even about Mike Pence; it's about Christian faith, and eradicating it

In the roundup below, I link to an overall look at Jimmy Kimmel's fetid stew of ugliness, smugness and banality at last night's Oscars awards show.

One particular remark of Kimmel's has stuck with me throughout the day, namely, this:

"We don't make films like 'Call Me By Your Name' for money. We make them to upset Mike Pence," Kimmel said.
 This utterance demonstrates how thoroughly secularized Kimmel, his audience and his industry are. It's not as if some kind of personal preference of Pence's has been slighted by the making of such a movie. Mike Pence's views on the subject on the subject at hand - homosexuality - aren't a matter of finding it distasteful. He probably does - and would be spot-on for doing so - regard such a film as a cultural threat, but not because those who have cinematically disseminated its message deserve hate or ostracism. It's because of something that the likes of Kimmel would never have the occasion to discuss: sin.

This is the truly grotesque core of the lie being put forth by those who see themselves as our cultural betters: that actual Christians hate those with unorthodox sex lives. They don't. But you have to hand it to the arbiters of what's acceptable in 2018 post-America. They put Christians in the position that white Americans in the 1950s who were, with considerable awkwardness, emerging into an acceptance of racial integration were in. "Why, just last week, we had some of them over for dinner" went the refrain.

Occasionally I see Christians take the bait on this, but they need not. It's an entirely different set of circumstances. For that matter, black Christians are some of the most vocal defenders of the importance of making sin central to conversations about homosexuality.

I have no idea whether Mike Pence has any homosexual friends or professional associates, but I have met the man and know some of his family, and they are not anything like the caricature that has been his shadow since the 2013 religious-freedom dustup in Indiana.

St. Paul did not subject himself to stoning and shipwrecks for the sake of tepid abstract speculation. He had one of the most profound conversion experiences in history, and approached his spread of the Gospel and the building of the Church with an urgency that he sustained over decades. For that matter, what he had to say on what real love and fellowship look like are quoted by a wide spectrum of people and organizations.

But he did say these things about same-gender intimate relations:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).
It has to be squarely faced.

The last two passages in particular speak of who will not inherit the kingdom and who is in violation of the law.

But Paul also writes prolifically about what supersedes the law: the grace of Lord Jesus, which is available to anybody and everybody.

Now, in a sociocultural climate such as we have descended into in 2018 post-America, it's understandable that a great many homosexuals are going to respond with, "Save that crap for somebody else. I don't need any forgiveness for the way I live out my sex life."

Fine, but you can't stop Mike Pence or any other Christian from praying for you.

And, by the way, they pray for themselves and all the rest of us, too. Sin takes many forms, and we all have a few.

But the idea that protecting the freedom of Christian business owners who want to conduct commerce based on the principles St. Paul clearly espouses somehow constitutes hate is ludicrous.

But you can get a big hardee-har-har out of a roomful of self-appointed cultural overlords who have deluded themselves into thinking that it does.




39 comments:

  1. Somewhat distasteful joke if you're Mike Pence or one of his defenders. I did not pause to watch the AAs. From hilaritas to gravitas. Something there is in a sinner sees sin more vividly as more mortal in others possessing the same mortality. That's what being created equal is partly all about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe try to reword that. I'm unclear as to what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I laughed.
    You sighed.
    We sin.
    We judge.
    Some like to just pack fudge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Pence was so righteous and right, why did he back off so swiftly? Is there a power greater than God for him? If it was because this is a democracy and he wanted what the majority wanted, well then, of course I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He had a bout of moral cowardice. He's had a few of them since becoming Vice President.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's called ambition and it worked. The fundies forgave him and he hitched a ride on their votes holding onto Teump like he was his bitch riding on his bike.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The principles discussed in this post remain immutable regardless of who did what.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And for all the sinners, it ain't over till it's over, so it is said:

    6 And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ 8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. 9 Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”Luke 13:6-9

    It's also pretty clear in that prayer the Lord gave us that we are to forgive as we are forgiven. When Peter asked Him how many times we must forgive, the answer was a ridiculously high number like 7 times 70. So why get your knickers in a ruffle over sin? Only yours is what you can really take care of. How are you doing with that? You're not your brother's keeper you know. Thank God for that, don't worry, be happy....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, of course we are to forgive.

    Here's what the point is: What states such as Indiana, circa 2013, were looking at was a way to protect Christian business owners from having to conduct business in violation of their faith. In other words, comply, because a gun was held to their heads, with an endorsement of what they knew to be sin.

    That's as wrong as it gets. I pray that you agree.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Georgia currently has such an initiative before its legislature. LITD is watching to see if the spiritually grotesque extortion the film industry is threatening the state with has any effect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Selling something to a person you believe has sinned is not a sin, is it? Not selling something to one person but to another because one is a sinner and the other is not is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Many religious voters feel alienated from the Democratic Party, says Atlantic staff writer Emma Green. Why haven’t liberals tried harder to reach the broad percentage of Americans who identify as religious? “Democrats in Washington often have trouble speaking in religious terms, and they reflect a broader liberal culture that doesn’t take religion seriously,” she explains. But this is an uncomfortable shift, one that has a political costs. Previous progressive figures have actively relied on religious rhetoric to move policies forward. Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter, for example, framed their ideals in religious terms and audiences were receptive. Is it time for Democrats to incorporate religious identity back into their outreach and politics? This is the second episode of “Unpresidented,” an original series from The Atlantic exploring a new era in American politics.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/514691/why-dont-democrats-take-religion-seriously/?utm_source=atlfb

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bobby Kennedy went to Mass every morning but still got shit because he was a liberal and of course a phony who bopped Marilyn Monroe and participated in having her offed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll say it again. The religious right has done more damage to Christianity in America than anything. People think they are supposed to feel the love, not the hate. And thumping the Bible's message of doom to sinners does not work, because you know what, the thumpers are sinners too, though they think they're so strong and spirit-filled and so right. So did the Pharisees.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your continued hatred (yeah, I said it...) and enthusiasm for discriminating against those wired a bit different than yourself -- no matter how "sanctified" you believe such deplorable behavior to be -- remains your most glaring character flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will not tolerate being slandered. I don't hate anyone or condone discrimination against any demographic. You really need to take that back, mostly so you aren't hounded at night by the realization that you have lied.

    This is about business owners being free from government coercion. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...This is about business owners being free from government coercion. Period."
      So said the Greensboro North Carolina Woolworth's Diner in 1960...

      Delete
  17. Of course religious voters feel alienated from the Democrat party. Who among the American populace that loves God, freedom, basic dignity, decency and common sense would touch it with a ten-foot pole?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I don't know... Lifelong Democrat Billy Graham comes to mind...

      Delete
  18. There is nothing in any post on this blog going back to 2012 that could be remotely construed as hateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One need look no further than this posting.

      "I'm holding in my hand proof that your love condemns you to Hell forever..."

      You can call that "love" if it soothes your feelings, but the more credible standing for characterization goes to the recipients of your proscriptions.

      Delete
  19. You need to cite the post by title and date.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who would condone the Democratic Party? Those fleeing from the lack of tolerance (if not hate) from the religious right. It's not so much anti God as anti God's self-appointed spokespersons and enforcers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I didn't realize until recently that there's actually a name for what you're describing: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mtd-not-just-a-problem-with-youth-ministry/

    Kenda Creasy Dean, in Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, argues that American teenagers have bought into MTD, not because they have misunderstood what the church has taught them, but precisely because it is what the church has taught them. She writes,

    Moralistic Therapeutic Deism has little to do with God or a sense of divine mission in the world. It offers comfort, bolsters self-esteem, helps solve problems, and lubricates interpersonal relationships by encouraging people to do good, feel good, and keep God at arm's length. [3]

    When this self-help theology is combined with a sola-boot-strapia sermon from TBN, we start having teens singing, “God Is Watching Us from a Distance” while—at the same time—wondering why Jesus isn't fixing their parents' marriage or their problems with cutting.

    MTD isn't just the problem of youth ministry; it's the problem of the church. And American Christianity has become a “generous host” to this low-commitment, entertainment-driven model of youth ministry.

    Counter to the Gospel

    Think about those three words, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. They run counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ in every way. We are not saved by earning our way up the good-works ladder, nor is God the divine genie dispensing wishes at command. He's not a distant “clock-maker,” sitting back to watch it all play out, but the personal Immanuel who became man to seek and save his bride. The gospel says that Jesus has accomplished for you—through his life, death, and resurrection—everything that God has required of you; thereby, securing eternal life for all God's people, and received by faith alone.

    This is where the importance of method comes to the forefront, which (unfortunately) is often disassociated with theology. While our theology of the gospel should inform our method, the American church—to a large extent—has practiced just the reverse. The question on many youth leaders' minds is, “How do we get bored teenagers into the church?” The question should be, “How are we to faithfully plant and water the gospel of Jesus Christ for his glory and our joy in him?”

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, I try to follow the 2 Commandments: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I pray the Our Father in which we ask to be forgiven as we forgive and I hear the Beatitudes, the bakers and all who refuse to serve sinners might take great comfort in #3 & 8 and heed #5. But bravo to you if you want to try to categorize me too as anything but a Christian.

    "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    Blessed are they who mourn,
    for they shall be comforted.

    Blessed are the meek,
    for they shall inherit the earth.

    Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

    Blessed are the merciful,
    for they shall obtain mercy.

    Blessed are the pure of heart,
    for they shall see God.

    Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they shall be called children of God.

    Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

    ReplyDelete
  23. #4 applies more than #3 but they all apply. Let go and let God! Does it give you some kind of charge to charge your fellow humans with sin? What's up with that? Have you not enough of your own sin on your plate to deal with for a lifetime?

    ReplyDelete
  24. So I suppose you can show me where it's the Christian mission to shun sinners. Didn't the Savior sup with sinners (to the considerable consternation of the Pharisees and other judgers)?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Where are you getting this nonsense about shunning sinners? For one thing, that pretty much includes everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And where are you getting this "charge fellow sinners" crud? I'm in no position to charge anybody. The Word of God convicts us all of sin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You don't have to eat with a sinner, just sell them their goddam cake like you'd have to with any old nigger too.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You are willfully ignoring what I've said in this post:

    This is the truly grotesque core of the lie being put forth by those who see themselves as our cultural betters: that actual Christians hate those with unorthodox sex lives. They don't. But you have to hand it to the arbiters of what's acceptable in 2018 post-America. They put Christians in the position that white Americans in the 1950s who were, with considerable awkwardness, emerging into an acceptance of racial integration were in. "Why, just last week, we had some of them over for dinner" went the refrain.

    Occasionally I see Christians take the bait on this, but they need not. It's an entirely different set of circumstances. For that matter, black Christians are some of the most vocal defenders of the importance of making sin central to conversations about homosexuality.

    As I told another commenter further up this thread, was Pence and all RFRA supporters were concerned about was government coercion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Haven't you noticed that when democratically passed and Supreme Court vetted laws are broken, Government moves in to coerce? In commerce there is to be no discrimination. You hang the shingle which means you got to mingle.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How you gonna handle the lions if government coercion sends you whining about imminent eradication of our faith. Well, it is so very late in the day and martyrs too aren't what they used to be. What's the real worry? Our kingdom has never been of this world.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No such laws are applicable in this situation.

    You don't have to "mingle." Stop it with the disingenuousness. In the cases of Baronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips and most of the Christian business owners, they had provided floral arrangements, cakes or whatever to homosexuals, in some cases the very couples who asked for wedding services. Christians know that there is no such thin g as homosexual "marriage" and that pretending there is is a sin, so they declined. That is their God-given right.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, I thought there was some aspect of civil rights law operative in these cases. You sure there's no laws that were broken by these litigants' refusal to provide services to the public for whatever reason of race, national origin etc? So sexuality is still fair game for discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jokes apparently stick in your craw too. I realize there's nothing funny about a blood sacrifice but lighten up, maybe? Heaven has been said to be a playground. So why not start here and now?

    ReplyDelete
  34. But it's all only MDM I guess. Repent and be saved! (Torture yourself today for a shot at not being tortured tomorrow).

    ReplyDelete
  35. MDT, if u know what I mean. You're always free with MDT!

    ReplyDelete