I'm Christian, unless you're a child molester

Recently, I have seen several people share a link to a blog post titled "I'm Christian, unless you're gay."
(http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html)

I finally read the post.  While the author makes an attempt to tackle a difficult issue, and promotes kindness toward others (both laudable acts), in the end, Christianity was oversimplified and misrepresented.

One of the first examples used is that of Westboro Baptist Church, the group that has become famous for outrageous protests.  The vast majority of Christians with whom I associate find this behavior distasteful at best.  Protesting at the funerals of soldiers or hypocritically condemning corporations whose products they use (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/312445) is a poor representation of Christianity.  Fortunately, the author quickly moves from this topic.

The author makes reference to a personal friend who feels lonely and avoided because he is a homosexual.  He points out that many Christians will actively reject, ignore, avoid, and worse any that do not believe the way that they do, even to the point of courageously admitting that he once did himself because of his Christian beliefs.

The author asserts that these judgements are based on self-righteousness and that they do not represent the true roots of religion.  He says that Jesus taught "love one another" and "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her ("Her" being a woman who cheated on her man)."  Christ did say both of these things.

Finally after examining the teachings of several other faiths, the final conclusion made is that they all focus on love.  Not love unless a person is homosexual, but just love.  The author's point is that "The greatest spiritual leaders in history have all preached love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds."

After oversimplifying religion, the author then proceeds to discuss sin.  He points out that regardless of where you live or how strongly you believe, someone else somewhere believes that you are wrong.  Ultimately the claim is as follows:

"It doesn’t matter if you or I think anything is a sin. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter if anything anybody else does is a sin or not.
Because sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be!
And it has nothing to do with love."

This point is certainly popular.  It is politically correct.  As of right now, the post has been shared more than 32,000 times.  Notwithstanding the popularity of this concept, it is wrong.

To the secular observer, Christianity might be reduced to a philosophical concept of love.  It is a common misconception.  Christ certainly preached love, forgiveness, kindness, and humility.  None of these concepts represent the core of Christianity however.  The true root is Christ himself.  He is never wrong.  He is the way the truth and the life.  He is the only way men can reach their potential.  Sometimes accepting Christ means learning to love others.  Sometimes it means recognizing and avoiding evil.

Sin is not a personal thing at all.  It is universal.  It is general.  It is determined by God himself.  While there may be those that disagree on what the will of God is, or how to interpret the words of prophets, the beliefs of men do not shape right and wrong.  The tail does not wag the dog.  In the end, every person will be judged on their actions by Jesus Christ.

A fair point is to say that Christians should not demean or hate those that are guilty of sin.  An unfair point is to say that Christians should not consider politically correct activity to be sin. 

"I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is really not all that different from "I'm Christian, unless you're a child molester."

Of course there are those who will say that homosexuality is nothing like child molestation.  While it may be said these acts are different, in the end, they are both sin... as is adultery, as is murder, as is theft, as is bearing false witness, as taking the name of God in vain.  Christ taught that all of these people should be treated with kindness on an individual basis.  This says nothing about the responsibility of society as a whole, or even important judgements to be made on an individual basis.

It would be foolish for society to simply forgive child molesters and serial murderers and let them wander free.  That does not mean a Christian society should strive to draw and quarter those that are guilty of these crimes, but just punishment is appropriate.

On an individual basis, the stance of Christianity is to forgive, even those guilty of crimes so awful as child molestation.  This does not mean that Christians should hire them as babysitters for their kids.  We should not feel forced into accepting the incorrect choices of others in the name of kindness.  Avoiding those that openly propagate wrong is not always unjustly cruel, even if it is perceived as such.

It is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin, but finding the line that divides mercy and acceptance of sin is not easy.  How does a person express kindness and simultaneously make it understood that they cannot condone wrongdoing?  That is the real question. 

Certainly there are many Christians that do not have it right.  I can think of many occasions where I personally have failed either by being cruel to a person I deemed sinful, or by failing to stand for what is right in an effort to fit in with the politically correct. 

Christians are not perfect... but our master is.  When he comes again to save us, it will not be to save us in our sins... it will be to save us from our sins.  He will not come to save those that demand acceptance, but those that plead for forgiveness.  He will not come with love in the form of a blanket pardon; he will come with fire and fury and he will destroy those that have maligned and abused his disciples - and he will be right in all that he does.

Christians must strive to remember that we are not Christ.  We do not know all things.  We are all guilty of sin.  We need forgiveness for our shortcomings as much as the homosexual and the child molester because sin of any kind should be avoided.  Promoting good and rejecting evil should be done carefully... standing for what is good does not have to mean being cruel... and fighting against sin does not have to mean bullying.

Declaring "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is obviously wrong... but not just when it comes to being unkind.  It is also wrong to cast off Christianity in the name of accepting a lifestyle that is immoral.  A Christian should never accept relativistic concepts of good and evil.  A Christian believes there is one truth, one way, and one Lord for all people, and his name is Jesus Christ.

Satan Bound

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And case him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." (Revelation 20:1-3)

There is a debate that exists among many Christians regarding what exactly the idea of Satan being bound means.  Latter Day Saints are not united in the interpretation of this either.  When speaking on the subject of the millennium, a member of my class commented that Satan would not literally be bound, but that this was figurative since the people that would live under the personal reign of Jesus Christ would not give place to Satan.  A citation of the following passage was added as evidence: "And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan haas no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth." (1 Nephi 22:26)

There are other passages that indicate this binding may be figurative rather than literal.  Personally however, I do not subscribe to the figurative binding for several reasons.

First, a literal binding is possible.  Satan is not just a concept, or an idea, he is a literal individual that is filled with hatred and malice toward men.  God did in reality cast him out of heaven.  God does have power to bind any individual since he is omnipotent.

Second, if it is people that are not giving into temptation, why not say that?  Why use the wording that places Satan as the direct object.  And if at the end of the thousand years people begin doing evil, why not say that they forsake God as was so frequently said of the children of Israel in the Old Testament?  Why say that Satan shall be loosed?  It makes the most sense that Satan is the direct object of binding and loosing when the binding and loosing is literal.

Finally, and particularly for LDS scriptorians, if modern revelation is the key to our understanding and the Book of Mormon tends to point to a figurative binding, why would the Doctrine and Covenants indicate a literal binding?  "For Satan shall be bound, and when he is loosed again he shall only reign for a little season, and then cometh the end of the earth." (D&C 43:31)  "And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years." (D&C 88:110)

I believe that people underestimate the power of Satan.  He has accumulated ages of experience, and he knows very well how to manipulate men.  There really is only one person that can best him every time, and that is Jesus Christ.  He is the one that redeems men that have enough faith in him from the grasp of the devil.  He is the one that saves us from Satan's power.  Because of him we pray to God for deliverance from evil.  He is not just saving us from a concept, a philosophy, or an idea... Christ saves us from a literal threat, from a real villain that plots against us with malice and disdain.  If we trust in him, he will save us all.

The Most Correct Book

News stories on every channel cover politicians, and at an accelerated pace with presidential elections coming in the next year.  Like many Americans, I have found myself disenchanted to some degree with the lot of them.  It seems as if posturing is more important than planning, and popularity is better than principles.

I do not think anyone from any persuasion is looking for someone that is able to harness the power of political correctness and over-sensitivity to lead, but boldness is dangerous in public service.

Perhaps the political climate has contributed to my interest in Christianity. The Bible is filled with bold claims.  Elijah promising no rain or dew until he declared otherwise (1 Kings 18), or Isaiah's bold prophecies about the fall of Sennacherib in the midst of a crushing siege (2 Kings 19) represented the fearlessness with which men accepted God.

In modern times, it seems that some preachers of religion are willing to make exception for many things to increase appeal among potential church-goers... but fortunately not all.  Respect is to be given to several sects for holding to their principles in spite of pressure from the secular influences of society.

For those that appreciate boldness, there is perhaps no claim more bold than that of Joseph Smith Jr. concerning the Book of Mormon.  He said "I told the brethren that the  Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Book of Mormon Introduction, emphasis added)

For some, this claim is too bold.  Consider the following passage: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made." (Alma 34:9)  This sentence would be covered in red ink were it turned in to an English teacher.

Also consider this passage, which seems to admit flaw to the Book of Mormon: "And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;" (Ether 12:23)

How can one possibly claim such a book to be the most correct of any book on earth?  Is this reckless boldness, or outrageous rhetoric?

What many fail to realize about the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith did not write the book.  He translated it.  In order for a translation to be correct, it does not necessarily require the original author to have used correct grammar and punctuation.  It does not require the printer to have set the type flawlessly.  It does not require that the scribe use the standardized spellings of words.  A translation is correct in its meaning.

Any work of translation requires some degree of interpreting the words to determine the intent of the author.  As fluent as a translator may be in multiple languages, interpreting the intent of the author is almost impossible.  Consider how many different interpretations there are of the wording of the Constitution in English by other English speakers in the world of politics today.

The Book of Mormon was not translated by a scholar, or a linguist.  It was translated by a prophet.  He received the interpretation from God himself... and God was there when it was first written.  He knew what was in the hearts of those ancient prophets.  He knew what they longed to say.  There is nothing lost in translation because it was translated by the power of God.  There is no other book like it.

Scholars have poured over the Bible, and men have given their lives so that its precious message could be spoken in every tongue... but try as they might, there is no one uniform translation of the Bible to rule them all.  This is not the case with the Book of Mormon.

The need for a flawless interpreted witness of Jesus is not difficult to see.  There are those who claim that the Bible represents the interpretations of some religious zealots who were close to Christ, and that the claim of his divinity is too bold.  These secular views can be dismissed by the bold, clear, and repeated witnesses of Christ in the Book of Mormon.  It proves that Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the prophets and apostles were not exaggerating when they declared that Christ was the very son of God.

I stand by the bold claim made by Joseph Smith.  The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth.  It prophecies and testifies of Jesus Christ.  As Nephi declared, "...if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." (2 Nephi 31:20)