Would Jesus ? ? ?
I have way too many FRIENDS on Facebook (term used ironically) and some of them are organizations or websites. One of them is Tony Campolo's Red Letter Christians. I occasionally go to that site when something on Facebook intrigues me.
Such was the case with this headline, "Would Jesus bake a cake for a same-sex couple?" The question infuriated me, not because of the reference to homosexuality but because of the assumption that Jesus' job is to bake wedding cakes, not run the universe.
Red Letter Christians represents the left wing, Sojourners, social justice side of the evangelical community. I appreciate their efforts to waken us to poverty and real need, but I think they are misguided, as much as I respect Campolo overall and know he is educated, a college prof, etc. (That does not make him above questioning).
In calling themselves Red Letter Christians they are, I think, trying to find the real Jesus. They don't like the Jesus of the traditional church, so they search the Bible and especially Jesus' words, which are in red letters in some published Bibles, with the assumption that those words will be more focused on social justice.
I don't have a problem with their questioning the assumptions of the traditional church when it comes to the identity and behavior and character of Jesus, but I think they have gone in the opposite, and yet same, direction. They are still worshiping a Jesus of their own making.
Their Jesus is hip, cool, understanding, tolerant, and even worse, bakes wedding cakes. Now, seriously. Can you really see the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who worked in a stone quarry (not carpentry), drove out merchants from the temple, died on the cross, was resurrected, ascended into heaven, and will return as king of the universe baking wedding cakes for a straight or gay couple? In seeing Jesus as so human, we dehumanize him, de-man him.
Yes, I know, Jesus was fully man and did physical things and had the children on his knee and talked to the woman at the well. He ate and drank with sinners, and always said, Go and sin no more, not "let's celebrate your sin." (Although some of the commenters seemed to think he encouraged drunkenness at the wedding at Cana.) I think we get silly when we ask if Jesus would do certain things, as if we can't judge for ourselves the good and bad of it without bringing Jesus into it and making him look foolish.
The writer's editorial about Jesus and the wedding cake was innocuous enough. She is sympathetic to the gentleman in Oregon who is being sued under Oregon (where else?) law and isn't really saying adamantly that he should bake the cake, only that she would to show the love of Jesus, and that doing so would show imagination.
The point of the story is that the man was being forced by the state to bake the cake anyway; his choice was taken away, which is sad enough in itself that in this country such a thing is happening. But the subordinate point is whether baking the cake by choice would be condoning and celebrating same sex marriage. I don't see how it wouldn't be. Being kind to a gay couple as humans, reaching out to them in need, does not mean one must celebrate their marriage.
At the same time, a Christian who believes this shows the love of Jesus does have the right to do so. But one who doesn't should not be criticized, sued, or called unloving or unChristlike.
Such was the case with this headline, "Would Jesus bake a cake for a same-sex couple?" The question infuriated me, not because of the reference to homosexuality but because of the assumption that Jesus' job is to bake wedding cakes, not run the universe.
Red Letter Christians represents the left wing, Sojourners, social justice side of the evangelical community. I appreciate their efforts to waken us to poverty and real need, but I think they are misguided, as much as I respect Campolo overall and know he is educated, a college prof, etc. (That does not make him above questioning).
In calling themselves Red Letter Christians they are, I think, trying to find the real Jesus. They don't like the Jesus of the traditional church, so they search the Bible and especially Jesus' words, which are in red letters in some published Bibles, with the assumption that those words will be more focused on social justice.
I don't have a problem with their questioning the assumptions of the traditional church when it comes to the identity and behavior and character of Jesus, but I think they have gone in the opposite, and yet same, direction. They are still worshiping a Jesus of their own making.
Their Jesus is hip, cool, understanding, tolerant, and even worse, bakes wedding cakes. Now, seriously. Can you really see the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who worked in a stone quarry (not carpentry), drove out merchants from the temple, died on the cross, was resurrected, ascended into heaven, and will return as king of the universe baking wedding cakes for a straight or gay couple? In seeing Jesus as so human, we dehumanize him, de-man him.
Yes, I know, Jesus was fully man and did physical things and had the children on his knee and talked to the woman at the well. He ate and drank with sinners, and always said, Go and sin no more, not "let's celebrate your sin." (Although some of the commenters seemed to think he encouraged drunkenness at the wedding at Cana.) I think we get silly when we ask if Jesus would do certain things, as if we can't judge for ourselves the good and bad of it without bringing Jesus into it and making him look foolish.
The writer's editorial about Jesus and the wedding cake was innocuous enough. She is sympathetic to the gentleman in Oregon who is being sued under Oregon (where else?) law and isn't really saying adamantly that he should bake the cake, only that she would to show the love of Jesus, and that doing so would show imagination.
The point of the story is that the man was being forced by the state to bake the cake anyway; his choice was taken away, which is sad enough in itself that in this country such a thing is happening. But the subordinate point is whether baking the cake by choice would be condoning and celebrating same sex marriage. I don't see how it wouldn't be. Being kind to a gay couple as humans, reaching out to them in need, does not mean one must celebrate their marriage.
At the same time, a Christian who believes this shows the love of Jesus does have the right to do so. But one who doesn't should not be criticized, sued, or called unloving or unChristlike.
Comments