BreakPoint: Christian Worldview and “The View”

Revelation vs. Majority Opinion

Here’s a hard saying for some: Just because you think Jesus would do something doesn’t mean He would.

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop, is a brave man. Because he refused to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony, he was hauled before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He was fined, and faces financial ruin. But he’s still standing fast. And the Supreme Court has agreed to take up his case.

Perhaps even braver than appearing before the Supreme Court was agreeing to appear before another august panel about his Christian beliefs: I’m speaking of the daytime TV show “The View.”

Paula Faris got the ball rolling. “Did you ever ask yourself what Jesus would do in this particular situation?” she asked, and then added knowingly, “Do you think Jesus would have said, ‘I don’t accept this, but I’m going to love you anyway.’”

Of course, the audience applauded, knowing that nothing says “I love you” like baking a cake.

Phillips’s reply was pretty straight-forward: “I don’t believe He would have because that would have contradicted the rest of the biblical teaching.”

“Oh c’mon,” one hostess interrupted to more applause, “Jesus would have made the cake. Jesus can turn water into wine. He can do whatever He wants.”

And then resident theologian Joy Behar jumped in, “You’re supposed to believe the Bible and everything but … that’s a deal breaker. Jesus is gonna make the cake,” then she tosses her palms up like, “what’s the matta’w’you?”

Look, I have no insider information about the faith or theological training of the cast of “The View,” but I’m struck by their certainty that they know exactly what Jesus would do.

But then again, that’s not at all unusual these days, is it? How often do we hear atheists, agnostics, or members of other faiths pronounce confidently exactly what Jesus would do in any given situation?

And almost always it’s, “Jesus is all about love.” And by “love” they mean accepting and affirming whatever someone says, wants or does. It’s called “radical inclusion.”

Now of course, what’s missed in all of this is that God’s love for us is inseparable from God’s sovereign purposes in the world He made. As Abraham Kuyper so helpfully clarified, Jesus is not doing something new or different than God the father. Redemption doesn’t reject creation, it fulfills it—it completes it. In Christ, God hasn’t changed His plan, He’s fulfilling it, which includes bringing us into full communion with Him and into conformity with His grand story of all that is, all under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Our personal opinions about God’s love and God’s plan don’t change that reality one bit.

But sadly, even many believers miss this point. They get upset when you say that a belief they hold contradicts Scripture, or that an idea they embrace contradicts or is inconsistent with a Christian worldview.

Look, Christians disagree on many things, and there is room on many issues for disagreement within the bounds of orthodox belief. But not all.

Here’s the point, one that Doug Wilson made at his blog recently: “A Christian worldview is not the sum total of what all the people who are going to Heaven think. It is the system of truth and life that is revealed to us in the Bible. We find out what that is by careful and submissive study, and not by counting available extant interpretations.”

He’s right. We can debate all we want the reliability of Scripture, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the existence of hell, and the biological fact of the difference between men and women as created by God. Fine. But our debates and opinions don’t change revealed Truth.

When we lose sight of that, what we get is not a Christian worldview at all, but more of a circus like “The View.”

 

Christian Worldview and “The View”: Revelation vs. Majority Opinion

As John has often pointed out, our view of the world informs our view for the world. We live out what we believe through the lens of our worldview, and by reading and meditating on Scripture, we discover God’s revealed will and purpose.

 

Find a BreakPoint radio station in your area–Click here.

Resources

A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today's World
  • John Stonestreet, Brett Kunkle | David C. Cook Publisher | June 2017
Wide Angle Christian Worldview Gift Set
  • Chuck Colson, Rick Warren

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Love must be defined. We love our children and we place safe boundaries for them due to that love. To remove the boundaries of morality is like removing a train from its tracks. That is not love. That is a BAD freedom, a train wreck. Please pray for a revival and/or Great Awakening in the U.S.A.

    • fidelity

      mm, yes, well said, but if you pray for the world, the USA will be included.

  • Phoenix1977

    It’s even quite likely Jesus never did. Because if he indeed had raised such a problem in the temple he would have been arrested and thrown in jail and perhaps even died long before being crucified. At best it’s likely a parable, but most likely a huge exaggeration. He probably only mumbled someone should do something about this money lenders and someone blew that out of proportions in order to give Jesus another moral knot on his belt. But it’s highly doubtful either the temple guards or the Roman occupiers would have allowed him to walk should he have committed such an act.

    • Janice Doe

      SHM – do you believe what you just said??!! If so you are playing into same worldly trap that John Stonestreet’s article is about. As he stated – “Christians disagree on many things, and there is room on many issues for disagreement within the bounds of orthodox belief. But not all. We can debate all we want the reliability of Scripture, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the existence of hell,…..But our debates and opinions don’t change revealed Truth.” Really – you can say the moon is made of cheese, shout if from the mountaintops, buy out lots of TV/radio time, push this down people’s throats using various types of propaganda, even re-write science books. In the end – you will see that many people believe it but the moon is still a hunk of rock – NOT cheese. Just like the ladies of the view – they can say what they will and popular culture may agree but that does not change the truth of what is.

      • Phoenix1977

        Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. And Christians should know that better than anyone. I mean, how long did the church manage to uphold the geocentrism theory even though it was proven to be wrong? About a 100 years, if I’m not mistaken?

        And, as I discussed with Scott in another topic, the only source we have to verify the authenticity of the bible is the Catholic Church since they have the oldest complete copy know to men in their archives. So not only do we have to take their word for it since virtually no one is allowed in those archives and most definitely not a non-Catholic, but we also have no way of verifying if they made any alterations. After all, I think we can all agree the Catholic Church is a pretty shady organisation, if not today than at least in the past, where quite a few popes in history were more active in acquiring power and fortune than the in saving the souls of those poor Christians. As an example: Rodrigo Borgia, who later became Pope Alexander VI.

        So yes, I believe pretty much everything in the bible is either a parable, an exaggeration or downright untrue. Or have you seen anyone split a sea recently, turn water into wine or raise the dead?

        • Steve

          So there is no absolute truth, Phoenix?

          • Phoenix1977

            No, there is not.

          • Steve

            So what you are saying is not true?
            There is an inherent contradiction there. You are saying as if it were the truth that there is no truth. Which one is it?
            So it is not true that, say, the torture of innocent children is wrong?

          • Phoenix1977

            You asked if there was an absolute truth. There is not because what is considered true today can be proven a lie tomorrow. It happened over and over again in history and it will continue to happen over and over again in the future.

            “So it is not true that, say, the torture of innocent children is wrong?”
            I can think of a few organisations / countries that indeed believe that statement, yes. Though I am not one of them.

          • Steve

            And so just because they believe it is ok, then it is ok with you?
            That destroys your whole argument of the treatment that you say you have encountered due to your sexuality. You say that it is wrong. How can you say that if right and wrong is relative? You see, you can’t just claim the truth for those things you espouse. It is the case that people have thought that they had understood things to be the truth, but were wrong. That does not mean that there is not a transcendent Truth. Just because I get lost on the way to my destination does not mean that the destination does not exist.

          • Phoenix1977

            “That destroys your whole argument of the treatment that you say you have encountered due to your sexuality. You say that it is wrong. How can you say that if right and wrong is relative?”
            And yet the only people who don’t think it’s wrong are the people who committed these acts against me in the first place: Christians.

            “It is the case that people have thought that they had understood things to be the truth, but were wrong. That does not mean that there is not a transcendent Truth. ”
            If you have been given the evidence and you demand it to be buried at the cost of the discoverer’s life, like the church did with Galileo, than you cannot state it’s simply because people believed something wrong. That’s actively denying the truth because it doesn’t fit your version of the truth and the world. Same is with homosexuality. Christians keep stating it’s a choice to act and that it is unnatural. But if it’s a choice and unnatural, why do you see it in virtually all mammals in nature who cannot make a real choice but to follow their instinct?

            “Just because I get lost on the way to my destination does not mean that the destination does not exist.”
            I would agree only if you meant a physical location somewhere on this planet.

          • Steve

            So you are arguing for moral relativism. If they think it is ok, it is ok for them. Do you really believe that if a society believes that the torture of innocent children is ok then they can do it and we cannot fight to stop it?
            That then makes any arguments against racism or discrimination of LGBT individuals irrelevant. You can’t argue against discrimination as being wrong if you adopt that approach. You cannot have a functioning society with that sort of thought.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Do you really believe that if a society believes that the torture of innocent children is ok then they can do it and we cannot fight to stop it?”
            Like I said, there are quite a few countries in the world that actually think that, yes. One of the US’ main trading partners when it comes to oil, Saudi-Arabia, is one of them. Apparently being good friends with the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia is more important for the US than doing what is morally right.

            “That then makes any arguments against racism or discrimination of LGBT individuals irrelevant. You can’t argue against discrimination as being wrong if you adopt that approach.”
            Very good point. Christians keep denying discrimination and atrocities against LGBTs by Christians even though the evidence for it is overwhelming. So, even though proven, it’s still not true in the eyes of the Christian beholder. Thank you for proving my point.

            “You cannot have a functioning society with that sort of thought.”
            Yes, we can. That’s called a secular democratic society.

          • Scott

            Yes there is absolute truth… although some might talk in circles to deny it.

            Claims by few conspiracy theorists without credible evidence would not hold up in a court of law. Many cold cases have been solved without eyewitness testimony using less evidence than what we currently have for the gospels. If we have more evidence affirming the gospels then that is not a red flag, just more evidence. As I pointed out before, the early Christians faced more oppression and Jesus teachings weren’t popular to those with power and wealth. Especially considering His teachings advocated for societies marginalized people. You do not have an open mind about Christianity so when you are presented with credible evidence you choose not to believe it. I am glad that our justice system works completely opposite to your reasoning.

            Aslo, when given examples of all the Christians who have sacrificed for the greater good of the world around them, you continually choose to ignore them.

            The disciples risked their lives to tell a lie in which they stood to gain nothing (power/wealth/etc.)? Even when faced with a martyrs death they stuck to their convictions about Jesus. Compelling.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Claims by few conspiracy theorists without credible evidence would not hold up in a court of law.”
            Doubt is enough to sway a jury and make sure there will never be a verdict. Conspiracy theories will accomplish that.

            “Many cold cases have been solved without eyewitness testimony using less evidence than what we currently have for the gospels. If we have more evidence affirming the gospels then that is not a red flag, just more evidence.”
            Hardly. When 3 witnesses claim the exact same thing in a court of law they will be discarded for being coached what to say. And cold cases only get solved with hard evidence, never by faith.

            “You do not have an open mind about Christianity so when you are presented with credible evidence you choose not to believe it. I am glad that our justice system works completely opposite to your reasoning.”
            Tell that to innocent locked up people.
            I told you before, our frame of reference is different. You have faith, I don’t. I demand 100% cold, hard irrefutable evidence. Christianity cannot deliver that so Christianity is not my way of life. Nor will I trust Christianity.

            “Aslo, when given examples of all the Christians who have sacrificed for the greater good of the world around them, you continually choose to ignore them.”
            Because they don’t matter in my view. Like I said, the good done will never remove the evil done. At least, not for me.

          • Steve

            I would encourage you to read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. It is a book that presents rational arguments that may appeal to you. It is interesting and since you take enough time to post here i thought you may be interested.

          • Phoenix1977

            The only books I read by C.S. Lewis are the Chronicles of Narnia. He should have stayed with fiction.

          • Scott

            Great book (and suggestion)!

          • Scott

            You are using more of my quotes lately… thanks. : – )

            “And cold cases only get solved with hard evidence, never by faith.” Agreed! That is why you should read “Cold Case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace.

            Also you don’t have 100% cold, hard irrefutable evidence that God doesn’t exist. Your beliefs are based (frame of reference if you will) on your own bias. No matter how you try and spin it that is the truth.

            Refusing to forgive will harm you much more than those you hate/wish vengeance upon/hold a grudge against. That poison will corrupt your heart.

            Accepting love from those you perceive to be enemies though… now that might turn your heart of stone to flesh. : – )

          • Phoenix1977

            “You are using more of my quotes lately… thanks. : – )”
            Makes it easier to keep track on what we are commenting on 🙂

            “Also you don’t have 100% cold, hard irrefutable evidence that God doesn’t exist.”
            Except I don’t need to. In science the hypothesis is always that something is untrue or does not exist and proof on the contrary needs to be given / found. So the burden of proof is not with me 🙂

            “Refusing to forgive will harm you much more than those you hate/wish vengeance upon/hold a grudge against.”
            I’m not denying that. You have no idea how tiresome it gets to be on high alert all the time.

            “Accepting love from those you perceive to be enemies though… now that might turn your heart of stone to flesh. : – )”
            Nice one. But answer me this: what is more vulnerable, stone or flesh?

          • Scott

            “Nice one. But answer me this: what is more vulnerable, stone or flesh?”

            Thank you!.. and your question wasn’t bad either. : – ) May I answer your question with another question?.. Which feels better?

            Also we have agreed to accept each others world views as a set of beliefs, both of which are based on evidence… yes? Can we also agree that many scientists start out to prove their hypothesis either true or untrue? Shouldn’t scientists refuse bias until proof is irrefutable? I think I read that somewhere once. : – )

          • Phoenix1977

            “Which feels better?”
            Depends on when you ask me 🙂 There are moments I prefer the stone.

            “Can we also agree that many scientists start out to prove their hypothesis either true or untrue?”
            No, in science a hypothesis is, by default, untrue until proven true. So as long as irrefutable evidence is not available the existence of something (like a god) remains untrue. That why faith and science will never see eye to eye, since the one means doubting everything no matter how much evidence is available while the other means believing something which can never be proven beyong a doubt.

          • Scott

            You might guess that I don’t entirely agree with that. After all, some scholars argue modern science was born out of faith. : – )

            Science certainly does not mean doubting everything no matter how much evidence is available… unless someone has decided to change the definition of the word. Nor does faith mean believing something which can never be proven beyond a doubt? You sure do like to exaggerate the extremes. Your definition of the word “faith” is closer… but you might consider getting rid of the word “never.”

            One definition of science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

            One definition of faith: “Belief that is not based on proof.”

            In fact, I think the two go along quite nicely.

          • Phoenix1977

            I didn’t make the definitions. The one about faith was given to me by the preacher of my former church. The definition of science was given to me by my professor. I simply combined the two 🙂 Although I do agree with them both.

          • Scott

            “Depends on when you ask me 🙂 There are moments I prefer the stone.”

            Ouch! I would think you’ve had enough of the stone! : – )

        • Scott

          That is not true… there are many ancient non-Christian texts that corroborate the stories told in the Bible. Also we can verify that the early Jewish and Christian scribes took accuracy very seriously as verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many books have been written by Christian and even non-Christian scholars that illustrate the accuracy of the Old and New Testaments.

          I can agree with you that there have been some shady people within the Catholic Church, but to say that the Catholic Organization as a whole is shady is a stretch. Pope John Paul II was not a “shady” man for example. Also the early Christian church (before the Council of Nicaea) were in constant fear of martyrdom… they had no power/wealth or influence outside of the Holy Spirit and (especially the disciples) were so convinced of Jesus that they did not fear risking the horrific end they (with maybe on exception) suffered.

          In your conversation with me you came to your conclusions about the Bible without offering any evidence to back up your claim. Fortunately you do not need to offer me any as I have already read much of the evidence that you would cite (being a former atheist). On the other hand I presented you with a couple of books that would contradict your claims and offer evidence in favor of Christianity and either you will not read them or discount them entirely without reading them.

          So there is an evidentially based alternative to your beliefs.

          • Phoenix1977

            Also the Dead Sea Scrolls are incomplete and there are quite a few conspiracy theorists out there who claimed the lost scrolls were destroyed in the early days of the Church because they contradicted the bible. And the same is said for numerous stories, including alternative gospels, that simply didn’t make the cut for the bible. Also, the fact there are numerous affirming stories and only a handful contradicting ones, after 2000 years, should be a red flag on it’s own. Most of the time that points towards oppression of other ideas, also something we know the Catholic Church has quite the history of.

            Pope John Paul II was not, indeed. However, what to think of Cardinal Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) who was his trusted advisor and, incidentally, instrumental in keeping the sexual abuse of minors covered for decades? As his superior John Paul II was responsible, even if he was kept in the dark. Ignorance is no excuse.

    • Scott

      We all believe in the truth of the Bible. We believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

      • Phoenix1977

        No, Christians do. Non-Christians believe the bible in nothing more than a number 1 bestseller with some great marketing techniques.

  • gladys1071

    You know Jesus would not act remotely the way we Christians do and or most of Humanity. He was perfect, being fully man and fully God, he judged NO ONE. He had every right to and yet he showed compassion on the woman caught in adultery, he showed the stone throwers that none of them can throw a stone, and guess what NEITHER CAN WE.

    it is unbelievable as Christians how judgement and how far we have drifted from Jesus example, it is so sad to see.

    Each and every one of us CANNOT or will ever meet God’s standard of perfection as long as we are in these bodies. Every one of us is a sinner and will be till the day we die

    • Sam Benito

      “He judged NO ONE”.

      ! ! !

      “The world hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” ~ Jesus, John 7:7

    • Just One Voice

      So I’m just curious here. I’m still trying to piece together your comments and where you come from.

      I’ve asked once or twice if the Bible has any authority in your life, but can’t recall an answer.

      In the response above, you say “we Christians”, so you’re stating that you are one. And yet, you said in another thread you are NOT an evangelical Christian. Care to elaborate any? It seems the word “evangelical” has so many interpretations now.

      Furthermore, it’s clear that you support abortion. But then I saw recently that you are against gun control. That’s a new one for me. Everyone I’ve ever met is either for both or against both.

      Again, just curious. Feel no urge or need to reply. People are like puzzles or stories to me. They’re written & pieced together over a period of time, with all the small experiences totaling up to equal who they are that particular day.

  • Scott

    I think it is safe to say that Jesus, being part of the Trinity, did own the temple. : – )

    • Arnold Kropp

      I was using the logic of the View, that of secular humanism, the temple was built by humans, occupied by humans and therefore owned by humans and Jesus should have known that (being just a human like the rest of them).

      • Scott

        Sorry… it was a bad joke. : – )

  • Just One Voice

    Right, I got that you’re a Christian, pro-choice, and against gun control. How about answering my questions? Or if you don’t wish to respond directly, then simply say no thanks.

    Please note, I’m no debater at all. I’m not trying to win any arguments whatsoever. I’ve never been competitive enough to even want such a thing. I simply seek to understand different points of view. (I know, so honest & sincere. What’s a body supposed to do with those traits? *insert friendly sarcasm here*)

    I must admit, I’m pretty raw on my understanding of “Eastern Orthodox.” So I’ll have to do some homework there.

    You’ve said you’re a Christian, so I’ll ask only once more: Does the Bible have any authority in your life at all?

    What constitutes “evangelical” in your view? From where I sit, that term has gotten so muddied by politics.

    And since it’s very unfair to ask all that of you and not share anything about myself, here goes: God and his word (written or spoken) are the main informants of how I live. So, the Bible carries a LOT of authority for me. In the Bible’s own terms, I strive daily to be a disciple of Christ. In other words, a Christ-follower (which is the literal meaning of Christian, last time I checked.)

    With all respect.

    • gladys1071

      Sorry i did not answer all of your questions. I do believe in the bible, but do NOT consider it the final authority. I find the bible points me to Jesus. I think God is too big to be confined only in the bible. The Eastern orthodox faith, they also read the bible, but they also are aware that God is mysterious and that as human beings cannot know everything about God. They are big on relationship and as believers spending one on one time between believer and God, and developing intimacy and quiet time with God.

      I don’t consider the bible a replacement to relationship with Jesus and seeking God in prayer, meditation, and fasting. I do believe that we are saved by grace by faith in Jesus, i just consider the bible final authority, i find it to be a guide, with Jesus being the final authority.

      • Just One Voice

        Thanks for the expansion on Eastern Orthodox. I believe all those things you mentioned too, because they are in the Bible! (See the times where Jesus seeks solitude-like Luke 5:15-16; also his words about prayer in Matthew 6.)

        Indeed, the Bible is a guide. I certainly stand corrected if I sounded like it’s the final authority; just meant that it’s a big authority for me. Because I totally agree that God is too big to be confined; to anything!

        • gladys1071

          Good i am glad that we can agree. The Eastern orthodox faith believes God is so big and mysterious that in no way as human beings we can fathom all of his ways and his thoughts. I have come to that realization more and more as i get older and believe that God can work in mysterious ways in people’s lives in what we don’t see and that all judgement should be left up to God.

          • Just One Voice

            Precisely!

            Isaiah 55:9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

            My thought: Despite math being a very concrete science, have we been able to take a measuring stick and measure the distance from earth to the heavens? Haven’t heard of it happening.

      • Daniel Pascale

        2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

        Matthew 7: 21-23 – “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

        The will of God is not something that is ambiguous. We have a clear set of instructions on what is good and what is evil. For example ‘Thou shalt not murder’ in light of ‘Psalm 139:13 – For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb’ has a me thinking anyone supporting Abortion of any kind, as a shaky approach eternity with the father.

        Thanks be to Gods grace, anyone who repents to God and turns from there wicked ways will receive the precious gift of salvation.

        • gladys1071

          The bible is not as staightforward as you say it is. If it were their would not be so many different denominations. The Catholic church thinks their view is correct which includes (perguatory, limbo, penance) They actually do not believe one is saved by grace. The reformed tradition does not believe that their is a pergatory, some sects believe you have to be baptized to be saved. Some believe in hell, others annilation etc.

          So no the bible is not clear on all of these issues. Everyone reads the bible with a certain view or lense, you cannot escape your own view.

          So which one is right, good question?

          You telling me that i have a “shaky approach eternity” is a most ridiculous statement, are you God, do you have some kind of secret knowledge of who is saved or not saved? As far as i know their is one God and YOU AND I are not it.

          Interesting thing is Jesus called the most self righteous, who thought they were doing God’ work the evil doers, not the sinners and tax collectors.

          • Daniel Pascale

            I find the bible clear very clear on fundamental truths, how we should live and especially what sin is. I don’t like the label ‘denomination’ it is a thing of man and not of God. We are called to follow Christ and to seek the truth for ourselves in his word. It is the only authority in which God has given us. Further we are cautioned about following the teachings of man.

            I don’t think the question is even relevant, sorry. I do not concern myself with any teachings on such matters as you mention above (nor does my church), only the teachings which helps me do the will of God. And it is most definitely by Grace that we are saved – not by works.

            No I am not God, nor do I claim to be. I don’t claim at all to be perfect, I am far from it, it is only by Gods grace that I am saved and I do have full confidence in this.

            Further I did not intend to comment on the status of your own salvation. as that is something that I cannot know about you. Thanks for highlighting the self righteous tone of my comment, It is something I will be more aware of in the future, I am sorry.

            Those self righteous people Jesus rebuked were those using there authority and positions for there own gain, instructing the people in one way while not holding themselves to the same standards. I hope this is not me.

            In love I do warn against following spirit lead or personal revelations and teachings that contradict the word of God. We all need to remain teachable – myself included.

  • Just One Voice

    But let’s not forget after his conversion, he became Paul the apostle who was equally ambitious about winning people over to Jesus. (Acts 9)

    • gladys1071

      Yes, and he preached Jesus crucified, that is the gospel nothing more.

      • Just One Voice

        Hmm, Christ crucified is the gospel and nothing more? Doesn’t gospel mean good news? So someone dying is good news? Doesn’t the gospel include his resurrection & that he is alive?

  • Of course, the audience applauded, knowing that nothing says “I love you” like baking a cake.

    It’s a cake for a wedding. You really need to rethink your battles. This is the hill to die on? Two people want to celebrate their love publicly, and this baker has to dump on it?

    Phillips’s reply was pretty straight-forward: “I don’t believe He would have because that would have contradicted the rest of the biblical teaching.”

    Nowhere does the Bible talk about two loving people of the same sex.

    I have no insider information about the faith or theological training of the cast of “The View,” but I’m struck by their certainty that they know exactly what Jesus would do.

    Why is it surprising? You know exactly what Jesus would do.

    But sadly, even many believers miss this point. They get upset when you say that a belief they hold contradicts Scripture, or that an idea they embrace contradicts or is inconsistent with a Christian worldview.

    There are 45,000 Christian denominations today, growing at the rate of 2 per day. There are a lot of “Christian worldviews.”

    “A Christian worldview is not the sum total of what all the people who are going to Heaven think. It is the system of truth and life that is revealed to us in the Bible. We find out what that is by careful and submissive study, and not by counting available extant interpretations.”

    Honest, thoughtful Christians come down on both sides of many issues. You’ll say that, where you differ, your interpretation is correct. But then they say the same thing. There is no unambiguous way to get the truth from the Bible, sorry.

    But our debates and opinions don’t change revealed Truth.

    Whatever. The problem is that you can’t reliably get this “Truth.”

    • gladys1071

      Exactly the bible is subject to interpretation and whose interpretation is correct, everyone reads it with a certain lense and or view point. Nobody reads it objectively.

    • Sheryl Chandler

      Bob Seidensticker, you seem to think YOU have arrived at “Truth”. You seem pretty sure of your views…like perhaps there are some “absolutes”. So maybe the basics are not that illusive after all? And, btw, the Bible doesn’t speak of insider trading either. Should we allow that? Is silence really the best indicator of right and wrong? Perhaps the Bible doesn’t speak of “two people of the same sex loving each other” because, by definition, it’s not love. It’s lust and perversion. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality being a perversion and sexual immorality.

      • I see no evidence for objective morality, if that’s what you’re referring to. What is often mistaken for objective morality is strongly felt or widely felt morality.

        The Bible is very clear on homosexuality being a perversion and sexual immorality.

        I’m afraid it’s not clear. The Sodom story is about rape, not homosexuality. Leviticus is labeling ritual abominations, not harms to people. Romans is talking about God creating a crazy world where straight men and women engage in homosexuality. That is indeed weird, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

        I’ve written more at my blog, Cross Examined at Patheos. Are links allowed here?

  • Sam Benito

    Not all ‘moralizers’ are self-righteous. Many are simply faithful ambassadors obeying Christ’s command to “teach the nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20).

    • Scott

      Thank you for the scripture Sam!

      We are not righteous, we receive righteousness from Him and point others to Jesus and His moral law. Not to any constructs of our own doing.

  • Sam Benito

    Yes, and He was talking literal stones. No one I know is throwing literal stones. We’re merely drawing attention to the truth. As an old Puritan once said, “he loves me best who tells me the most truth.”

  • Shaun Hurrie

    Amen, it is a great article. Yes, Scripture often appears to be used by many Christians as a quaint backdrop to their own opinions/thoughts, but with no real authority. I have been guilty of this too, lest you think my Christian worldview has arrived at perfection ;-).

  • Phoenix1977

    “What “acts” were committed against you by Christians? I’m sorry with what suffering you experienced.”
    Don’t really feel like repeating myself again. Let’s just say if I never see another Christian in my life it will still be too soon.

    “I obviously believe there is an objective truth that we strive for. It is built into us that there is something beyond us that we sense.”
    Yeah, there’s not. It’s either been programmed into you since birth (if you were born a Christian) or since you converted. Just take into account all the other people who believe their view is the truth. We can’t all be right.

    ” I don’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth.”
    That’s the first time ever I heard a Christian say something like that.

    “I think it was horrible and don’t know the pain that those kids felt.”
    No, you don’t. But answer me this: have you ever actively tried to stop it?

    ” I think it is also wrong, in a different way, if a baker who truly believes homosexuality is wrong and it would be wrong for them to participate in a gay wedding is forced to do so. I am a physician who believes that abortion is wrong. Although abortion is legal it would be wrong for me to be forced to participate in that. Different than baking a cake but both founded on religious beliefs.”
    I don’t agree with you on both accounts. As a professional, be it a baker or a doctor, you don’t have personal feelings. You only have professional obligations, either to your customers or yo your patients. By allowing your personal feelings or believes to stand in the way of those obligations you’re doing others a disservice and you are, quite frankly, not suited for your job.

    • Steve

      You do an awful lot of judging of other people, mainly Christians, while seemingly holding yourself up as all knowing. I did actively stick up for kids who were being bullied.
      And as a professional physician I have obligations to treat patients and not to end life. In fact the original Hippocratic oath included the obligation to not commit abortion, because for millennia physicians have held that that is ending a life. It was only changed relatively recently as the medical profession went off the rails with regards to life issues.
      Assisted suicide is legal in some states and it is NOT the obligation of physicians to participate. Abortion is legal and it is NOT the obligation of physicians to participate. That, for now, is the law and is accepted widely by society. Obviously you feel differently. Get over it. At the same time as you claim that people must adhere to what you believe you claim that you are the arbiter of what they need to do. That is the definition of a tyrant.
      You claim that people are judging LGBT people such as yourself and you come anonymously on a discussion board and decide who is correct in their beliefs and who is “suited for your job.” I hope you appreciate the irony of your contradictions.
      You have had bad experiences with Christians. Because of that you are stereotyping all Christians to be the same. We are not. Just like not all LGBT people are alike. Why the constant categorizing people into groups?

      • Phoenix1977

        “I did actively stick up for kids who were being bullied.”
        That’s why I asked instead of assuming you didn’t. Thanks for answering my question 🙂

        “In fact the original Hippocratic oath included the obligation to not commit abortion, because for millennia physicians have held that that is ending a life. It was only changed relatively recently as the medical profession went off the rails with regards to life issues.”
        No, actually the Hippocratic oath was rewritten for 2 reasons: 1. The original no longer fitted modern times, and: 2. Because Christians had a serious problem with the fact the original called upon the ancient Greek gods.

        “Assisted suicide is legal in some states and it is NOT the obligation of physicians to participate. Abortion is legal and it is NOT the obligation of physicians to participate. That, for now, is the law and is accepted widely by society.”
        “For now” is the correct addition. Look at Canada, for example. Not only did they make euthanasia the law of the land but the law also states physicians who refuse to cooperate themselves are obliged to refer the patient immediately to a colleague who will. In Scandinavian countries doctors now ARE obliged to perform euthanasia and abortions without the option to opt-out and new regulations for universities ban students from medical school if the oppose abortion and/or euthanasia.

        “Obviously you feel differently.”
        What gave me away?

        “You claim that people are judging LGBT people such as yourself and you come anonymously on a discussion board and decide who is correct in their beliefs and who is “suited for your job.” I hope you appreciate the irony of your contradictions.”
        And yet, here you are, judging just as anonymously as I am.

        “You have had bad experiences with Christians. Because of that you are stereotyping all Christians to be the same. We are not.”
        That remains to be seen. So far I am not convinced.

        “Why the constant categorizing people into groups?”
        Ask your ancestors. They are the ones who started that practice in the first place.

        • Steve

          So it is ok for you to impose your will upon others but no one can impose their will on you? I get it now. It was wrong for what Christians have done but you are the arbiter of what is right? Sounds like tyranny to me. Read the Gulag Archipelago and get back to me. Take care

  • Phoenix1977

    “And with your argument about LGBT you say that discrimination and atrocities against LGBT is “proven.” Again, do you mean that that is true?”
    If something is proven is pretty much true, yes. Otherwise it’s difficult to prove something.

    “And please, atrocities? Not baking a cake for a wedding or refusing to do flowers for a ceremony are hardly atrocities, except when someone sees themselves as a victim. Atrocities are what happens to LGBT people under Sharia law. Being thrown off a building is an atrocity; being executed for being gay is an atrocity.”
    You’re correct. Being denied a cake is not an atrocity. However, forced castrations are, just as corrective rape. I’d consider sexual abuse “because that’s what you gay love so much” an atrocity, don’t you? Or trying to beating gay men and women to an inch of their lives (or beyond)? Or how about the negative conditioning of LGBT teens with electroshock therapy in reparative therapy sessions? Christianity is no better than Islam when it comes to LGBTs.

    “I hope you do know that our democratic society that recognize the primacy of the individual was derived from rights being God given, not State given.”
    Really? Than please point out to me the parts in the American Constitution where your god is mentioned. Let me save you the trouble, you won’t find them. Nowhere in the American Constitution you will find the word “god”, only the word “creator” but your Founding Fathers never specified who or what that was. And should the state decide to challenge those rights and take them away from you, who will defend those rights? Only the state can respect and guarantee your rights. No god or other entity can.

    “But people should not be forced to give up their religion beliefs. And that is where the problem lies, the balancing of rights.”
    No one is forced to give up anything. You can believe whatever you want, in the privacy of your own home. Outside you simply obey the law.
    And let’s not talk about balancing rights, okay? Not a issue Christians proved to be that good in themselves over the past 2000 years. The treatment of LGBTs and other minorities are quite a good example of that.

    • Steve

      So you do believe in truth.
      Creator=God. Pretty self evident.
      Sorry for your suffering. Don’t equate Christianity with what some Christians have done. I for one pray for you just as I would pray for anyone. Thanks for your comments.

  • gladys1071

    You just made my point. Jesus was harsh with the religious leaders, not the prostitutes, tax collectors , he hung out with sinners. It was the religious leaders and self righteous that Jesus rebuked.

    • Scott

      This is not completely true though… Jesus did rebuke sin no matter who committed it. If we take his example in John 8, He ends with telling the woman to “go and sin no more.” We often forget that part of the message. Jesus does call His followers to live a life free of sin.

      • gladys1071

        we will never live a life free of sin as long as we are in these bodies. I agree that we can most definetly try, but we will fail, that is why I am so Thankful that my sins were nailed on the cross with Jesus, otherwise we would all be doomed, tell me do you live a sinless lifestyle of perfection?

        I think this idea that we have that we can live a sinless lifestyle is false and damaging and leads us to a life of legalism and self-righteousness. Their is not ONE person on this earth that is not a sinner by default, that s why Paul said ” this wretched body of death”, he himself called himself the “chief of sinners”. He saw himself accurately.

        • Scott

          “tell me do you live a sinless lifestyle of perfection?”
          Not even close! : – )

          I do agree that we are not capable of living a life sin free… and I also agree that we can try… and fail. Jesus did not suffer our sins on the cross however, so that we would have an excuse to sin. We must try to recognize sin for what it is and rebuke it none the less… I try to repent daily (but I think I need to up that effort to hourly).

          For example: Taking part in a ceremony celebrating a sin is not something I believe Jesus would endorse. I believe He would however endorse inviting the same sinners for dinner to share the gospel.

          • gladys1071

            I agree with what you say 100 percent. Never said anything about excuses, I don’t consider baking a cake a sin. One can bake a cake but still in your heart before God not endorse the lifestyle, remember God looks at our heart.

          • Scott

            You are right, baking a cake is not a sin. Decorating a cake that honors a same-sex wedding (knowing that it is part of the celebration) would admittedly weigh my conscience though… and would probably feel convicted. This might be an easy choice for you, but I am not as confident about it as you are. : – ) I just don’t know, but I wouldn’t begrudge a baker either way.

            I know I LOVE Jesus!.. and my heart is still a work in progress! : – )

          • gladys1071

            I can love and serve someone despite whatever lifestyle they may live. I try to remember that I am too a sinner. I think God is more understanding and merciful than we think. I think the notion that God will be angry at us seems to be the motivation for some. I just don’t think God will be angry at us for being human and being gracious to our neighbor.

          • Scott

            I agree, I don’t think God would be angry… I liken it to buying an alcoholic a vodka and tonic.

            I would have no problem with: Inviting my LGBT neighbor to dinner. Baking a pie/cake welcoming them to the neighborhood. Feeding their pet while they were out of town. Meeting them for coffee. I would however feel guilty about contributing to an event celebrating their sin… just like I would feel guilty about buying that drink.

            That is the best way I can describe it… I believe Jesus would heal them or help them to stop sinning. I just don’t think He would contribute to their celebration of sin.

          • gladys1071

            you consider buying an alcoholic drink a sin, equal to participating in a same sex celebration?

            I was just curious since you brought up alcohol. I don’t consider buying a drink a sin, i consider living a life of purposeful drunkeness a sin, but not just drinking moderatly.

          • Scott

            I was trying to use it as a metaphor. Guess that didn’t work : – )

            The “alcoholic” (sinner) was meant to represent the LGBT individual (sinner). The act of “buying a vodka and tonic” (contributing to perpetual sin) was meant to represent the act of decorating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding (contributing to perpetual sin).

            “I was just curious since you brought up alcohol. I don’t consider buying a drink a sin, i consider living a life of purposeful drunkeness a sin, but not just drinking moderately.”

            I agree 100%. I would consider the act of getting drunk a sin… one of the many reasons I am a sinner!.. although I am now more careful about that. When I was an atheist… not so much. : – )

          • gladys1071

            i understand what you were trying to convey now, thank you for the clarification.

          • Scott

            Your welcome… It sounded so clear in my mind. Goes to show you how well my mind works. : – )

    • Janice Doe

      uh No Gladys. Stating Jesus was harsh with the religious leaders does NOT prove your point of saying Jesus judges NO ONE. Also you said, “everyone of us is a sinner and will be till the day we die.” The religious leaders were also sinners. Some sinners he hung with and some sinners he did not hang out with. Some of the prostitutes and Tax collectors were also self righteous. Jesus judged them as well. Luke 19. a chief tax collector was called out of a crowd (while in a tree) and judged by Jesus. The people around seeing Jesus call to Zaccheaus judged Jesus stating — Look he has gone to stay in the house of a sinner. Then Zaccheaus repented stating that “half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” Then Jesus proclaimed that salvation has come to Zaccheaus this day.

      Then there is the story leading up to and parable of the Rich Fool. in Luke 12 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” 16 Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. 17 And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ 20 But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God. Jesus is telling of a judgement! and it is not a pharisee. it is an every day sinner that Jesus hung out with.

      Jesus also judged entire cities – leaders and everyday citizens alike. One example of this is in Matthew 11 “Then he (Jesus) began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent.”

      • gladys1071

        I try to concern myself with my sin, not the sin of others. Let God deal with the sins of others that is how i live.

  • Because he refused to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony, he was hauled before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He was fined, and faces financial ruin. But he’s still standing fast.

    As a retail store owner, he’s obliged to serve everyone, and he was discriminating against a protected class. You don’t say, “We don’t serve your kind” to a mixed-race couple, and (in Colorado at that time) you don’t say it to a same-sex couple.

  • fidelity

    speaking to a Christian and hearing about how God operates, I realised I was actually talking to a raging humanist. (It was a: “Not everything in the Bible is attributed to God” conversation). If you can’t believe God did it when he said he did it, how can you be sure He will give immortality? Or: “He can make dead people alive, but couldn’t have done it in seven days”. Personally I buy into the whole thing, the whole way. Also, my God is powerful enough to write a book. I feel sorry for those Christians who have a God who is not powerful enough to write a book properly. If you’re going to believe one aspect, then have the integrity to buy into all aspects of it. Any ‘contradiction’ between the OT God and the NT God is merely the absence of understanding. “In Christ, God hasn’t changed His plan, He’s fulfilling it” – this is a great quote. Maybe people just don’t make an attempt at understanding the plan. Truth is mostly inconvenient I guess.