Once again, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are out to harm the cause of Jesus Christ. They have announced their plan to bring their hate to the funeral of movie star Heath Ledger. (Ledger, if you didn’t know, starred in the movie Brokeback Mountain about two cowboys who engage in a homosexual relationship.)
Phelps is the poster boy used by many anti-Christian groups to continue to push the myth that fundamentalist Christians hate someone who engages in homosexual behavior. (For the record, I don’t believe that Phelps represents fundamentalist Christians but critics of the Christian faith like to make that connection.) His actions run completely counter to the teaching of Jesus Christ himself concerning sin in someone’s life. I don’t know what Bible Phelps claims to read but it certainly isn’t the one that has the Son of God saying:
“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” - Luke 5:32 (ESV)
“Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”" - Luke 7:47-48 (ESV)
” Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”" - Luke 15:10 (ESV)
” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]” - John 8:11 (ESV)
Even if you believe homosexual activity is a sin Jesus himself didn’t say you’re to run around and condemn them with signs saying “God Hates Fags.” You’re to pray for their repentance and their turning from that sin and acknowledging that Christ loves those engaged in that activity as much as a sinner engaged in gluttony, lust, greed, sloth or idolatry.
Christians of all stripes need to stand up and confront Phelps for his distortions of the teachings of Jesus and work to eliminate those who side with Phelps’ extremism from being called representative of Christianity.
PREACH
Just a question.
What is the difference, the real difference, between what Fred Phelps does and what others do by creating laws (or voting for laws) that penalize or discriminate against homosexuals? Aren’t those laws a form of punishment and maybe non-forgiveness?
Not asking you to respond. Not trying to start a fight or an internet discussion. Just contemplate.
He’s a nut and makes all of us Christians (the whole gamut of us) look bad. Makes me mad. Crazy mad. I’m not so sure that most evangelical, fundamentalist Christians aren’t secretly happy with what he is doing. Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Van Impe folks like that tended to claim Katrina was a punishment from God for tolerance of gays.
The more Christians who oppose Phelps et al. the better we are all.
What about the people who want to pass laws to penalize Christians? Does that mean they’re equal to the Romans who threw Christians to the lions?
Political disagreement on issues does not equate to hate. That’s the difference between voting for laws that disagree with the pro-homosexuality agenda and what Fred Phelps does in displaying his hate.
What about laws that have been passed that penalize or discriminate against Christians? I can’t think of any. I certainly don’t want to pass any laws that discriminate against Christians. I don’t know of any lawmaker who is trying to pass laws that discriminate against Christians. like telling them who they can marry, where they can live, whether they can serve in the Armed Forces, That having sex with their spouse is against the law.
Yeah, I definately think it is unAmerican to discriminate against Christians, or any other person….regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation.
Jim Lee
“I don’t know of any lawmaker who is trying to pass laws that discriminate against Christians.”
Then you aren’t looking very hard.
We can start with any lawmaker that supports governmental programs to help needy people with restrictions that those people cannot share their personal faith with the people they are helping. If a church group is providing food for the homeless with funds provided by the government they’re prohibited from answering questions about Jesus even if they’re asked by the people receiving the food. That’s discriminating against a Christian’s right to free speech.
Now, the usual response I get is “well, then the Christians shouldn’t take government money.” So then these people shouldn’t be given the same access to government funds to help homeless? There’s no restrictions to stop a secular group from talking about their political and social agendas (like, for example, a pro-homosexuality group) but a Christian can’t tell someone about Jesus if they want to take government money to feed someone who is hungry. Yet talk about funding going to “faith based groups” to help with the homeless and watch the opponents flying around like hornets.
Christians have every right to free speech, as do all other Americans of every other faith, or no faith at all.
Just don’t hang Christian “free speech” on the taxpayers’ tabs.
Build your churches and evangelize all you can. BRAVO! Feed the hungry, clothe the poor: that’s the mission of Christian churches. But do it on your own dime, thank you. That’s why Christian churches SAY they exist.
Compare and contrast that stated mission with the typical Christian church-complex, where yoga sessions, cooking lessons, book stores, financial planning seminars, men’s basketball coaching, coffee bars, bowling alleys, and a myriad of other commercial enterprises take place TAX FREE. No sales tax. What a rip-off. All of these tax-exempt businesses compete with local businesses, who have to pay taxes.
I wonder if you would be screeching for government money for religious activities if you lived as a Christian in a community that was mostly Muslim?
My dad always said when the government gives you money, they tell you how to spend it. (He was the founding editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Mirror.
I’m quite surprised that religious organization would hold out there hand for government money. Seems counterproductive to me, but I guess religions need to take from the largess of government as well. After all most of the mindset is I pay into it I should be able to take from it.
Sorry people but if your in bed with government, don’t complain when government wants to control the positions and activity.
Jack,
Isn’t there a difference between standing on a street corner with signs and yelling hate at funerals and supporting the tradition belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman? It is not out of hate that some of us support the tradition views of marriage. It is like comparing someone that supports gun rights and person that takes a gun and shoots a place up- (if you support gun rights then you must be a gun totting wacko mentality)
It is sad to me that you think that “most evangelical, fundamentalist Christians” really have that kind of hate. I know a lot of people that would classify themselves in these categories and most are not those kinds of people but that is my experience. I can not speak for these leaders that you mentioned- I know that Robertson has made some bizarre comments like that. Most Christians realize where they have come from and the love and mercy of God and their own history of sin.
Larry,
There is a difference between Christians and Fundamental, evangelical Christians. There are lots of Christians that do not have hate, sure enough. But there are plenty of fundamental evangelicals who promote bigotry and hatred, even as they smile. Again, take a look at the major leaders of the movement (Falwell, Robertson, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, et al. They are the major leaders of the movement and they tend to promote the “God destroyed New Orleans because of gay sin” or they call for the assassination of leaders of other countries (Robertson did in both cases) or proclaim a children’s TV program has gay characters. Those are the people to whom I refer when I use the term “fundamental, evangelical Christians.” It is sad that so many people have that kind of hate.
As for the other issue, I specifically told Jason that was a question for him to ponder and that I was not trying to start any kind of discussion or debate with it. So I will not comment. We can talk privately about it if you want.
Jack…if you were intending it to just be something for me to contemplate then why make a post in a public venue instead of sending a private e-mail? You know full well posting something like that in public invites debate and discussion.
I posed a rhetorical question. It was food for thought. Never intended for debate, but simply as a thought for you (and other readers) to contemplate. I made that clear so as not to create a furry of spam hate mail on your blog.
Besides, Larry and I have flushed this subject out many times before. We are great friends. There is no need to take up the mantle again on your blog when we have done it sufficiently.
I apologize to you if my approach was inappropriate.