I have two very good friends. Actually they are two couples who are friends. One of those couples is made up of an agnostic man and a liberal Christian wife. The other consists of a life long Baptist wife and a Jewish man both of whom attend a baptist church. Both couples are liberal in their politics, and both have gay members in their family.
It seems to me as I observe them that it matters not the label of the individuals involved, weather Christian, Jewish or agnostic their response to the gay issue in their family is impacted more by their liberal views tempered by their own religion. And yes even the agnostic has his own religion.
They each have adopted the liberal political take from liberal Christianity, which is primarily to be accepting of the individual and of an individuals sin, even if they do not agree with it. It’s a “live and let live”attitude, except it really isn’t when examined.
The attitude: “This is the Christian thing to do”. It is based on love, loving your neighbor. Jesus told us to do that, and He came for sinners, and for the ones who believe it this way, He died for their sin. But believe it or not it is the good way to treat one’s fellow man. This is basically the way liberals view the sinner and his sin.
These beliefs being relied upon would suffice if Jesus had not called on us individually to follow Him as disciples ourselves, and if He had not asked us to forsake our own self interests to do that:
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ (NASB2020)
The liberal focus is upon the second commandment. They consider it to be a lack of love for our neighbor if we so much as say that our neighbor’s sin is a reflection on his relationship with loving God, which of course is the first commandment.
The liberal has to conclude that God (who according to His word changes not) has suddenly changed to accept everyone’s sin — no questions asked, so long as everyone loves one another.
But if it is a sin to tell one that their sexual sin will lead them to hell unless Christ does remove it; how then is it not equally wrong and a sin for them to tell the one that does this unloving deed, that they should not be telling others what is sin? They think that warning to be unloving and in their mind disobedient to the love commandment. If this position that they condemn is so wrong in their mind as they think it to be, then just what makes it a greater sin (in their mind) to not love the sexual sinners; than it is to allow for the rapist, the adulterer or the homosexual to harm and be unloving to their neighbor victims?
If they believe that it is wrong to point out one sin; then it must be held that it is wrong to point out any sin. They therefore could condemn no action of anyone that they disagree with. Yet, they do. Unless they are always living in accordance with their own interpretation of Jesus commandment to love, they then become hypocrites. Because even they think it necessary to point out certain sin, which they themselves think to be the most divisive.
So what does this love command really mean? We’ll deal with this question in the next post. This post is a companion post to the previous.