KMTs First Set of Claims

1. She asks: Are you saying people of other faiths, or others with no faith believe their own understanding of Jesus? And that their understanding might not be Biblical? Or agree with what you and others undertstand of what he said, did or asked?

Yes. There are millions of people that make millions of claims about Jesus. Nothing shocking there. Some of course are just people stirring things up and they really don’t know anything about Him, others know about Him and have even read His accounts.

The first question for either would be: If someone makes a claim about Jesus (or anything for that matter), does that make it true? The answer quite simply, is of course not. If I claimed Jesus lived in 500AD, or spoke English to his friends, or murdered a family of five in Ethiopia when he has 25 years old, that doesn’t make it so. You could at best say that you’re not sure if that happened, but given we have zero evidence for it, and real evidence that directly contradicts it, it certainly isn’t true.

Following a basic logical process then, how would you know what was true or not true? Well, you’d go research what is known of any person from history. If someone claimed George Washington did something, I’d have to research what is written of him to know if there was any truth to it. Same for Jesus claims. We have 100s of biblical accounts written by many different people, and external non Christian references to choose from. So when someone says the “Biblical” anything that doesn’t mean their opinion is “better”. It’s actually the opposite, it’s literally what does the Bible say about it? So there shouldn’t be anything controversial about someone saying, “Well if you want to know what Jesus said about something, we should go research it.”

Next she says: That’s a pretty sweeping generalization. I’m assuming by “Biblical” you are referring to your own lens of who Jesus is correct?

Three things happening here.

First. With reference to him saying that people have non Biblical views of Jesus, she responds by saying that is a sweeping generalization…Huh? Shouldn’t really be a provocative statement. Non-Biblical literally means something is said to be in scripture, or about something Jesus said in Scripture, or something not in scripture, that turns out to be false. So, if I said Genesis starts in talking about a man named Bill and a woman named Betsey. Yes, that would be non-Biblical. We don’t need to complicate this. Something is “Biblical” (why is she using quotes here?) when it is found in the Bible.

Second. She is ready to pounce to where she wanted to take this here: “You are referring to your own Biblical lens of who Jesus is…” This is where one should always pause. The intent of this statement is to crack a door that everything in Scripture is a matter of ones opinion. Next step is she’ll likely use an example of some thing that folks have disagreed about in the past as an example. This is a rabbit trail. The question here ought to be a simple one/two combo. Do you think anything in the Bible can be interpreted? This has to be Yes. When we’re told Do Not Murder can we interpret that? When it says someone went to the mountains to pray? That they lived in Antioch? Everyone agrees that there is plain meaning to written sentences. The question should just simply be: Forget talking high-level, let’s check what scripture says. What’s the process for clarifying a confusing statement in the Bible?

Third. Forget my or your “lens.” It’s irrelevant so far. How does anyone know about anything about Jesus to have a lens in the first place? 99% of it is going to be what the Bible says about him. SO my lens is first knowing ALL it says about Him. And second, whether I want to choose to believe it. Best process here would be simply to discuss what the Bible says about Him in totality. Review it together.

Next she dodges Jesse’s and Dad’s factual comment that the ad worked in driving interest about Jesus, and how great is that by saying she won’t compare (in other words, she isn’t going to answer) them to advertisers selling products because Jesus isn’t a commodity. Um… Okay… I guess. I agree, Jesus is not a commodity to be sold. But that actually has nothing to do with advertising. While it’s true that companies advertise products to consume (as commodities) that’s not all ads. There are political ads trying to drive behavior towards voting for someone. There are environmental ads trying to sway peoples opinions and drive behavior to protect the environment. There are ads that are public service announcements. Ads about staying off drugs. The purpose of advertising is to shape peoples opinions and drive behavior. And guess what? It works. Otherwise people wouldn’t spend the money. So, if the ad helped drive more people to Jesus, or to be curious about Him, or to read about Him for the first time and follow His teachings, how is that not only relevant, but good?

Then she says: Third, an “affirming” church is a church who welcomes the LGBTQIA community fully, accepting their sexual orientation and gender as a sacred part of their identities. There are a lot of them out there, and they are amazing spaces.

After reading this again, this actually might be the most penetrating example of the the big P problem with the off ramp that’s been taken…

Let’s start with the words being used, because frankly, you could insert any old word for “affirming” and the first question should be the same. We are trying to dialogue about what the “church” does or does not teach. Before we get to the second bit, which presumably has to do with what this church does or doesn’t think or teach about LGBTQIA folks. Again, back to scripture. The church is the translation of the Greek word ekklesia which translates to “the called out ones” or using another word “dedicated to the Lord.” In scripture the church is described as the body or members of Christ, as He is the head of the church and we are called to do the work of Christ as His body on earth. We also know from scripture that this church, is to meet with one another, exhort one another, teach one another as a coming together in assembly and with one another.

So the question is getting at this: The church is not just any old building in random town such and such, it is the physical assembly of believers following Christ, doing His will on earth through the great commission, that meets, supports and teaches about the life of Christ, the Gospel and scripture. The issue being t’d up is does it matter what this church teaches? And that answer, is definitely yes. The church ought to properly uphold the scriptures, teach them faithfully, live them out in faith with one another. So, don’t play the fool that it’s a big leap to suggest the “church” needs to accurately teach scripture and Christ. Of course they do. They question is what is taught in scripture. And again, that answer should be to go read it, exegete it, study it, connect it.

Brass tacks. What does scripture teach about LGBTQIA and once we’ve read it, what do we do about it in the world around us. (will write this piece later)

Sacred part of their identities…. well, exactly. “Their” identities.

They are “amazing places.” Sometimes I wish people would just slow down and think through the argument they are trying to make:

Amazing how? What does that mean? I played laser tag in NY once. It was an amazing place. Is that what we mean? Are we saying those churches are amazing because of their teaching on LGBTQIA? Are churches supposed to be amazing? How do we decide which church spaces are amazing?

Lastly she responds by saying she agrees that Jesus didn’t affirm all believers, but was “most vocal” about calling out hypocrisy in religious leaders who claimed to know God but mostly used fear to manipulate the law in order to keep people away from the love of God. People who were more concerned about appearing pious than actually serving people.

Well, boy, too many errors both directly and indirectly here to touch on. To start, he was not most vocal about hypocritical religious leaders. Not sure if she is implying that she resonates with this most, but Jesus most often taught and spoke about God and His Kingdom. Next most is faith and salvation. Next most, depending on how you interpret parables (literal vs. larger picture being painted), is money. Next most is hell. So this isn’t true.

Maybe a better question is does it matter? This answer should also be no. If you are of the belief that Jesus’s teachings are all worth following (as I am), let’s play this out. Let’s say Jesus taught 9 times about hypocritical religious leaders putting a yolk of their non Biblical teaching on people. And let’s also say, Jesus taught 7 times about eternal judgement, and hell. And lastly, let’s say he taught only one time about helping widows. Am I to infer from her statement that even though Jesus didn’t affirm all things sinners did, that what I should take from that is that he taught most (according to her, again, not true statement) about hypocritical leaders so we should only pay attention to that? That if he talked about it 9 times, and helping widows once, that he didn’t mean to help widows? Or we shouldn’t pay attention to that teaching because it’s infrequent?

There is no logical coherence to the point she is trying to make. I would say, yes, we should not be hypocritical Pharisees. And yes we also pay attention to every other teaching no matter the number of times.

Lastly, this word hypocritical. Fluff word to plug a hole people don’t want to discuss. You would have to determine what leaders are teaching FIRST and then determine if it’s wrong or hypocritical. If someone doesn’t say something you agree with, that doesn’t make it false or hypocritical. Jesus called them hypocrites for keeping their outward appearances “clean” looking while having dirty rotten souls. That can be hypocritical. He didn’t tell them they were hypocritical for celebrating Passover. Or for helping with priestly duties. Because they got those right.