“If you support Kim Davis in any way and think her actions are biblical, please read John 13: 34-35. Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Her job, and your job, isn’t to declare who is righteous and who is not. Her job is not to protect the sanctity of marriage, which is ironic considering she’s been married four times and had the second one end because she was pregnant by another man, but that’s besides the point. Her job, as someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, is to love unconditionally. And even if she believes homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t change the commandment of loving one another. Jesus even stresses to love one another the way he loved us. One of the biggest teachings of Christianity is that Jesus loves you no matter how you’re living and that it will never change.
She is not a hero or a martyr or even a representation of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus embraced those who others shunned. He ate with tax collectors. He befriended prostitutes. He surrounded himself with those [whom] religious people looked down upon because he loved unconditionally. If you want to be like Jesus, love everyone. That’s his words, not mine.”
That showed up in my Twitter feed today. It was liked and shared by many. It was tweeted by an unbelieving Twitter comedian. I don’t know who originally wrote it, but that’s not important. This kind of misinformed, anti-intellectual, anti-scholastic, ant-logical, religious straw-man is ever popular and ever present in today’s bigoted secularism.
Before we begin to dismantle this line by line and expose it’s falsehoods and hypocrisy, let’s be clear: this mind set is our fault. And by our I mean the visible church in America. Not the invisible Bride, but the professing Christians.
We have sought to limit Jesus so much in order to make our religion attractive, that we have preached a hollow Jesus to the world. We have preached a Jesus who’s only attribute is love. And the world ate it up. And now, we are seeing Christians living for the true Jesus being persecuted since we are contradicting the straw Jesus. Let’s be clear, Jesus isn’t less than love, but He is MUCH more than love. And it is offensive blasphemy to strip Him of everything but love. The God of the universe is too dynamic, complex, wonderful and holy to be simply called love and only love. Preach a whole Jesus. Preach a whole Gospel.
If you support Kim Davis in any way and think her actions are biblical, please read John 13: 34-35. Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
This is a verse about the disciples loving each other and showing the world (non-disciples) that they are in fact Jesus’ disciples. The closest application one could make is that this verse is teaching that Christians should love other Christians so that ALL people will know they are disciples. This has nothing to do with Christians loving the world.
Her job, and your job, isn’t to declare who is righteous and who is not.
Our secular friend begins this paragraph with what is called a “non-sequitur”. It is in fact illogical. A non-sequitur is a logical fallacy and it occurs when a person draws a conclusion that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. The last statement made was a (misinterpreted) quotation about Jesus telling us to love people. The author then concluded from that statement, who is and who isn’t allowed to declare people righteous. That’s a logical leap. It’s like saying “Jesus told us to love everybody, therefore you should eat dinner after five.” That conclusion is unrelated to the first claim.
Now, notice the hypocrisy of this statement. Apparently, it is the author’s job to point fingers, at not only Kim Davis, but the thousands of people who read this statement. The author has been given the authority to tell US what we can and can’t do, and condemn those who don’t follow, yet, in the process, is condemning a woman who thought she had that same authority. This is another logical fallacy. It’s a self-refuting argument. It’s self contradictory. That’s two already.
Now, the wording of this is ambiguous. If by “declare” the author means the declaration of justification as found in Romans or Galatians, than it’s absolutely true. No one but the God-Man is qualified to forgive and absolve sin and declare one righteous before God. However, I doubt our author meant that. It would not only make this even MORE of a non-sequitur, but it would also require a basic understanding of biblical theology, something our author clearly does not have.
Thus, it follows, that what the author is saying here is actually: “No one has the right to tell someone else they are a sinner.” And that’s not even close to true.
Her job is not to protect the sanctity of marriage
Actually, as a representative of the civil magistrate who issues marriage licenses, that’s exactly what her job is.
I wonder if this argument would hold water before the SCOTUS decision? Was she obligated to give these licenses before SCOTUS overstepped and sinned against God?
What if ten people came in the day before and demanded a marriage licence for their polygamy, would Kim Davis be expected to say, “well it’s not my job to protect the sanctity of marriage, here you go”? Is Kim Davis’ job truly to hand out a license to any and all who ask? No, her job is exactly to protect marriage. If a man walks in with a duck, should a clerk deny that man and that duck a license, or should a clerk remember their job is not to protect marriage and hand one out?
This is called reductio ad-absurdem. This is the technique of taking someone’s logic to it’s logical and final conclusion. When we do that, we see this logic is absurd, and thus, the statement is absurd.
which is ironic considering she’s been married four times and had the second one end because she was pregnant by another man, but that’s besides the point.
Wait a minute, what happened to “it’s not your job to declare who is righteous?” Where does our author get off calling out someone else’s sin (divorce, remarriage, hypocrisy) in the middle of an article condemning someone for calling out someone’s sin?!
Notice, the same leftist secularists who scream “let him without sin cast the first stone”, “judge not lest ye be judged”, whenever their sin is called out, are the same people just giddy to point fingers and mock someone’s sin.
Apparently, we aren’t allowed to call anyone a sinner, but our author can. Kim Davis can’t declare anyone a sinner, but our author can condemn Kim Davis as a sinner. Did we talk about self-refutations yet?
Her job, as someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, is to love unconditionally.
This is the main argument on the table, and the main argument in the secular bigotry movement. They take small snippets about Jesus being loving, yet they won’t allow the Bible they got those snippets from to define what love is and what it looks like. Where does the Bible teach that we are supposed to love people unconditionally? That needs to be provided. Then, where does the Bible define what that means and what that looks like?
If I define love as the following: one who eats American pizza.
Suddenly, Jesus is no longer love. He doesn’t have a loving bone in His body.
Jesus gets to define love. The problem for the bigots is this: Kim Davis is loving people by refusing the licenses.
Gay marriage is a self contradiction. It doesn’t exist. And that lifestyle, as Romans 1 clearly points out, is not only physically destructive but is also a serious sin. So serious, 1 Corinthians 6 says it keeps people from the Kingdom. When a person we love engages in dangerous, destructive behavior which is separating them from Heaven, the LOVING thing to do is interfere and try to stop them.
Kim Davis loves those people far more than our mystery author does, well, only according to Jesus that is.
And even if she believes homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t change the commandment of loving one another.
Celebrating and assisting sin is not love, it never has been love, and never will be love, see above.
It is because she loves these people that she ought to refuse them from a false license which angers God and encourages a destructive sin.
Jesus even stresses to love one another the way he loved us.
How about sacrificially? For example, loving someone so much that you would lose your job, go to jail, and be scrutinized by the public for trying to protect them from sin and honor God in the process? That sounds like good ol’ fashion sacrificial love, the kind Jesus called us to.
How about loving people in truth (1 John 3:18)? Kim Davis knows the truth about God’s law and His standard for marriage (Matthew 19) and His supreme authority over the civil legislature (Acts 5:29).
One of the biggest teachings of Christianity is that Jesus loves you no matter how you’re living and that it will never change.
I don’t mean this sarcastically, I don’t know what “biggest teaching” means and I think that phrase is very unhelpful. Even Jesus, when asked what the greatest commandment is, couldn’t give just one. He said to love God and to love neighbor. However, this is a summary of the Law. For how does one love God? Well the first 4 commandments tell us how to do that. How does one love neighbor, the last 6 address that. Thus, Jesus’ answer to the “greatest teaching” is “the ten commandments”. It could from that be argued, the the New Testament gives further revelation about God and man, so that Jesus really gave an answer that would encompass all of the New Testament.
Now, this goes back to the great problem at hand. The unbelieving world has heard such little truth outside of the word “love” that the word has utterly lost all meaning and it has overshadowed all of Christianities important teachings from God.
Let’s look at Jesus:
When God’s house was being mocked, Jesus made a whip of cords and drove men from the temple (John 2:15). That’s called violence, and it’s also called wrath. Where is the love?
On the final day, Jesus will send billions of people to Hell for the lives they lived (Romans 2: 6-9; John 3:36). Revelation described this place as being constant torment for all eternity with no rest (20:10). Jesus Himself added that there is grinding and gnashing of teeth (Luke 13:28). Where’s the love?
Jesus called Peter Satan (Matthew 16:23).
Jesus called the Pharisees broods of vipers (Matthew 12:34).
Where is the love?
Jesus is so much more than love. He isn’t less than that, but He is much more. And the belief that He simply doesn’t care how we live is so dangerous. It’s a lie.
Jesus is God. And Proverbs 6: 16-17 says that God hates the hands that shed innocent blood. It does not say He hates the shedding of innocent blood, He hates the hands that do it.
Psalm 5:4 says that God abhors the deceitful and the bloodthirsty. Not the sins alone, but those who embody those sins.
Psalm 26: 5 says God abhors the evil doer. God doesn’t abhors the evil that some do, He abhors the person who does evil.
Romans 9 says God loved Jacob but hated Esau.
God hates sins and the Bible says sinners too. A lot can be debated and read about the word hate, but the point remains, Jesus is not pleased with us regardless of how we live. Yet our world is convinced and comforted in their sin and in their rebellion because all they have ever heard is that some guy named Jesus desperately loves them. Why change?
She is not a hero
Yes she is. She is certainly more of a hero than Bruce Jenner. If he gets a courage award, so should she.
or a martyr
Technically, by definition, a martyr is one who is killed for their faith. Since, to my knowledge, Kim Davis is still alive, I will agree that she is not a martyr.
or even a representation of the teachings of Jesus.
Not in all things. However, Jesus would never issue a false marriage license, so on this issue she is.
Jesus embraced those who others shunned.
Yes, but He never offered them marriage licenses.
Let’s play another round of reductio ad absurdem. Should we embrace Jeffrey Dahmer? ISIS? What does it mean to embrace? In this context, it means to grant recognition and celebration of sin. How does that apply to ISIS? It probably doesn’t. That logic is absurd. It sounds like the Jesus of the Bible doesn’t quite match up with the Jesus made in the image of the secularists again.
He befriended prostitutes
Yes, but never tried to make prostitution legal or celebrated.
He surrounded himself with those [whom] religious people looked down upon because he loved unconditionally.
I’ll write another blog on this issue. However, for now, let’s remember, when He surrounded Himself with these people, He preached the truth of His message and their need for a savior. I wonder what our mystery author would of thought of that behavior provided Kim Davis did it….
If you want to be like Jesus, love everyone. That’s his words, not mine.”
As it has been shown, being a secularist is not how to be like Jesus. And those are His words, not mine.