Not too long ago a friend of mine sent me the following tweet from a John Pavlovitz:
This was my first introduction to the “Jesus never said…” theology. The argument being made here is clear; because Jesus never personally or specifically called out homosexuality as sin, homosexuality is therefore not a sin and is, by default, accepted by God. Even more alarming is the fact that Mr. Pavlovitz is conflating sin and hate by maligning anyone who rightfully and scripturally defines sinful behavior. Let me start my response to this absurd argument by stating the obvious. Here is a very short list of other things which Jesus never personally spoke against or declared to be sinful but were either directly or indirectly addressed as sin in the New, Old Testament, or both: rape, pedophilia, arson, drunkenness, debauchery, orgies, polygamy, gluttony, greed, child abuse, extortion, drug abuse, dictatorship, bestiality, genocide, mutilation, animal abuse, abortion, or slavery (to name a few). Interestingly enough, if we apply the “Jesus never said” theology to the aforementioned acts, this would also seem to suggest none of the acts listed above are sinful behaviors. Furthermore, not only would these behaviors not be sinful, we would be free to engage in them all without fear of criticism or penalty.
Now you might say to me, “But rape, child abuse, slavery, they all harm other people and Jesus to told us to love our neighbor.” Nope. Jesus never said rape was a sin. “This is going to be a “you” problem.” Clearly, this kind of thinking is a completely nonsensical and foolish thought pattern, which at best is harmful and at worst completely destructive! The fact that anyone would consider this to be even remotely theological in its substance tells me how Bible illiterate we have become and how far away we have moved from our understanding of the Gospel.
This theology of admissible by omission has already made its way into the pulpit. In a recent video, a pastor, who was part of a panel discussion on the topic of the LGBTQ movement, recently explained to his audience how he determines which subjects he will teach from the pulpit and which will not. When asked about homosexuality by the moderator, he told the audience he was going to be silent on subjects where Jesus was silent and shout the subjects where Jesus was not silent. And since, Jesus was silent on the subject of homosexuality, he would be as well. The premise of this philosophy is to say because Jesus was “silent” on homosexuality we, as Christians, should be as well. What an extremely narrow view of Scripture; not to mention a spectacularly gross negligence of theology. This is, in my opinion, nothing more than avoidance and a feeble attempt at self-preservation. Instead of this pastor taking a bold and Biblical stance on a subject as paramount as homosexuality, he chose to hide behind silence for fear of being rejected.
This, I believe, is at the heart of what is driving this cowardly philosophy. The fear of man has completely emasculated Christians on a grand scale. We are so enamored with social media “likes” and the accolades of man, we have lost our gusto in proclaiming the truth of the gospel, and then being content with our reward from our Savior. Furthermore, we justify this anemic behavior by rehearsing a lie we have come to believe as truth. The lie goes something like this; if I say something controversial or offensive (offensive as defined by the world), then I will lose my social influence, people will stop listening to me, and I will no longer be able to share the love of the Gospel. The problem is, if your sharing of the Gospel does not offend the world or worldly Christians, then you were probably never sharing the Gospel in the first place. Consider the following statement from Christ;
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Matthew 10:34-38 ESV Bible
Again, these are the words of Christ. Does this sound like a man who is worried about using socially acceptable language? Does this sound like a man who is concerned with whether or not the language he is using is offensive to his audience? He boldly proclaims that he came to bring a sword and division! Consider also John chapter 6. In this chapter Jesus tells his disciples emphatically, if anyone desires to have a place in Him they must drink his blood and eat his flesh, otherwise they will “have no life in them.” As the account goes, after saying this, some of his disciples said to him “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” So Jesus asks them point blank; “Do you take offense at this?” After asking this question, Peter alone had the courage to stand up and tell Jesus “Yes”, he was offended at this language. The result? Jesus, being full of compassion, apologized for his use of such offensive language. He got down on one knee and said he was so sorry for offending them and, in the future, he would do his best not to use such divisive and offensive language. Then Jesus asked them if they would please continue to follow him. The fact of the matter is, it was this single offended disciple who courageously stood up and declared his truth which ultimately helped Jesus finally see the error of his ways. After apologizing to the disciples, Jesus grabbed his lyre, sat beside his disciples and led them all in a song. This would be the first time we would be introduced to the song “Kumbaya My Lord”. So why did Jesus do all of these things? I think it would be fair to say he didn’t want to lose any followers. As is the case today, losing followers would’ve had a negative impact on his ministry and ultimately affected his social standing in the community. It would have likely ruined his effectiveness and his ability to be able to connect with others… (insert record scratch here!).
WRONG! That is not even close to what happened! In fact it is the complete opposite. After Christ asks them “Do you take offense at this?”, he doubles down on his offensive teaching by continuing to use even more controversial and offensive language. And what was the actual result of this exchange? “[M]any of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” Jesus is so completely unphased, unmoved, and unimpacted by this mass exodus, he has the absolute audacity to risk everything by looking the twelve disciples squarely in the eyes and asking them “Do you want to go away as well?” Peter answers him saying
“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
John 6:68 ESV Bible
This… this is what it means to be a follower of Christ. Here is our example. We do not shy away from controversy or persecution. We do not change the Gospel message because it is offensive. We do not reduce the Truth down to soundbites which fit the cultural narrative of the day. We stand boldly in the Truth of the Gospel and speak that which is true; even if it means it will cost us followers.
To be clear, I am in no way suggesting we go out of our way to be offensive to the world or that we look for opportunities to do so. But the fact remains; the Gospel is by nature an inherently offensive and divisive message to anyone who is not a Believer. It has always been and will always be a counter-cultural message; of this you can be assured. Paul says as much to the Romans in quoting from the prophet Isaiah calling Christ “a rock of offense.” Then at the church in Corinth, Paul describes the Gospel message as a “stumbling block” to the religious and “folly” to non-Believers.
I’m not sure how we ever arrived at this notion that the Gospel message must be presented in such a way so as to be attractive to the world, as though they are picking out a blouse to wear on a date? No! The Gospel is a message of hope and redemption. But in order to be received as a message of hope and redemption, the hearer must first come to an understanding he is in need of redemption. That is to say, he must hear hard things; things that are not nice according to the world’s standard and definition.
Unfortunately, in today’s culture, to use language the world considers to be offensive, has become the most egregious and vile sin one can possibly commit. Society has indoctrinated the masses with such a fear of being offensive, we are no longer willing to bring The Truth of the Gospel to the world. The risk is just too high. Instead we have chosen to proffer some sort of mutated love of God and have traded the truth of Christ for philosophies that are sensual and devilish. We have settled for a second rate gospel which brings comfort to the flesh but leaves the soul laid bare. For the worldly person whose moral compass is driven only by their human intellect, their definition of love is nothing more than just being nice to people and accepting them as they are without any mandate for change. But this kind of worldly, humanistic love is a textbook example of hypocrisy. You see, the love which the world has for me and for others is contingent upon conformity to societal dogma. You and I are accepted as we are, so long as how we are, is acceptable by the world. Once you or I stop conforming to the world, once we attempt to swim upstream from the masses; we will be hated (see John 15:19) What the Gospel provides, what Christ provides that the world can never provide is true freedom, true peace, true joy, and true love. All other attempts to provide these intangibles to a hurting world outside of Christ are nothing more than failed human efforts designed to assuage our need for God.
Another fallacy associated with this idea of “Jesus never said _________,” can be summed up in one word… compartmentalism. The entire argument is based on the notion God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are three distinct and mutually exclusive persons who are completely disconnected from one another; a thesis which is incorrect. People who would argue “Jesus never said” are mistaken at a foundational level. While it is true there are three distinct expressions of God, nevertheless, each expression of God is God. There is no such thing as a standalone Jesus who is independent of God anymore than there is a standalone Holy Spirit who is independent of Jesus. When Paul and James and Peter, and John were speaking an writing their epistles, they were doing so under the auspice of the Holy Spirit. They were simply acting as a conduit of God. Just as Moses spoke on behalf of God in the Old Testament, so spoke the Apostles after him. In short, when Paul was speaking it was Jesus speaking.
Bottom line here is this; to argue the “Jesus never said” position would mean you must also agree to embrace a veritable cornucopia of other behaviors such as chattel slavery and rape as acceptable life practices. Moreover, the “Jesus never said” theology is only effective when you fallaciously believe Christ is not God is not the Holy Spirit. In order to make this theology work, you must necessarily silo the expressions of God individually and then attempt to hold them hostage by those expressions. When you take away these foundational elements, as you should, the entire theological argument crumbles.
Sanctuary and Stone 