There's something you probably don't know about that buffet: Jesus would have no qualms about sitting at the bar eating scrambled eggs. In fact, Jesus probably wants you to go in there and join the patrons eating cold bacon.Posted on 02/28/2014 10:36:43 AM PST by Gamecock
Do you know that strip club down by the airport? You've probably never been in there. You likely have no interest in going in there. The only reason you even know about it is because your uncle, the one you have to pick up from the airport every Thanksgiving, makes a joke about the sign that says they have an all-you-can-eat buffet. (It's a lame joke made lamer by the fact that he tells it the same way every year.)
There's something you probably don't know about that buffet: Jesus would have no qualms about sitting at the bar eating scrambled eggs. In fact, Jesus probably wants you to go in there and join the patrons eating cold bacon.
You might be thinking to yourself, "Um . . . what?" Yeah, I was surprised too. But that is the argument many Christians have been making lately. Oh, they don't make that argument directly. But that is the implication of their argument (whose logic they often fail to follow to its conclusion).
Their argument, in enthymematic form, is:
Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too.
The problem with this argument is not that it is wholly false but that it is partially true. If it were false, we could rebut it and move on. But because it contains a kernel of truth we have an obligation to try to salvage it and fashion it into a respectable and biblically sound form.
The first way we can fix the argument is by adding an obvious clause:
Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too when they are not engaging in sin . . .
As the Apostle Paul said, in order to avoid associating with unrepentant sinners we "would need to go out of the world" (1 Cor. 5:9). We therefore don't need to be concerned about eating, partying, or hanging out with unbelievers in a place where no sin is occurring (at least openly).
We could have made that argument without needing Jesus as an example. But what happens when we consider how using Jesus as a model affects the claim?
Let's first examine how adding Jesus can make the argument, in one sense, completely true. As God, Jesus is always immanent in spirit everywhere in the world. There are no hidden places in which sin and evil is being committed where Jesus in not present with the unredeemed. So too should we be present with Jesus—in spirit—through prayer for unrepentant sinners. While we may never lean against the railing in the strip club down by the airport, it is covered with fingerprints of broken people who need our prayers.
Spiritual presence, however, is not usually what is meant. The argument implies that since Jesus was physically present with sinners, that we should also be physically present with the unrepentant. For several reasons, this claim is much more problematic.
The first problem is that we don't know whether it's true. While it's likely Jesus sat down to eat with sinners, there's no evidence he ever rose from a table with anyone remaining unrepentant. It's possible, even likely, that some who ate with Jesus (such as during the feeding of the 5,000) left as unrepentant sinners. But, if so, it was not for lack of effort on the part of Jesus.
In Luke 15, we find the oft-quoted claim made about Jesus by the Pharisees: "This man receives sinners and eats with them." What is often left out is the lengthy reply Jesus gave in response. After hearing their charges, Jesus tells three parables—about Lost Sheep, a Lost Coin, and a Prodigal Son—each with the same theme: rejoicing over the repentance of sinners. There is no evidence that Jesus ever ate with sinners and did not call them to repentance.
So we can update our problematic enthymeme with our second addition:
Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too when (1) they are not engaging in sin and/or (2) when we do so for the purpose of calling them to repentance . . .
But even this is not sufficient. The Bible says that Jesus ate with sinners and called them to repentance. There is no place in Scripture, however, that says Jesus was uncritically present when sin was occurring or when an action that mocked God was taking place. In fact, in the most famous example of Jesus being in the presence of an act where sin was taking place and God was being mocked—a scene recorded in all four Gospels—he made a whip of cords and drove sinners from the temple. Do we really think this same Jesus would "bake a cake" to celebrate a sinful union he himself considered an "abomination" (Lev. 20:13)?
We can therefore update our problematic enthymeme with our second helpful addition:
Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too when (1) they are not engaging in sin, (2) when we do so for the purpose of calling them to repentance, and/or when our presence does not condone sin or the mocking of God . . .
While this would appear to be sufficient to fix the argument, there is one more, rather peculiar, addition we have to make. In 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle Paul commands us to separate ourselves from fellow Christians who are engaged in sin:
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
This is truly a hard saying. Our culture has conditioned us to believe that "loving our neighbor" requires accepting them as they are. We now excuse all manner of behavior that our holy God finds abhorrent simply because someone we know—friend, family, coworker—is engaged in such openly sinful behavior. We don't want to appear intolerant or judgmental or "unloving" by separating ourselves from their presence. But Paul makes it clear that if the person engaged in sin is a believer we shouldn't even eat with them.
Now we can complete the problematic enthymeme in way that makes it Biblically sound:
Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too when: (1) they are not engaging in sin, (2) we do so for the purpose of calling them to repentance, (3) when our presence does not condone sin or the mocking of God, and/or (4) when the sinners are not our fellow believers.
Hopefully, this form of the argument is something that all believers can agree on. But for those who do not, cannot, or simply will not accept this formulation, I leave you with this final plea.
Please stop arguing that Christians should be forced to violate their conscience unless you are willing to be consistent in its application. On this issue, what our culture accepts cannot be used as the standard. Fifty years ago, racism was tolerated while sexual sins were publicly denounced. Today, the situation is reversed. Many Christians (surprisingly, even some Anabaptists) are now willing to argue (or at least imply) that the state should be able to force Christians to serve at celebrations of sexual sin. Yet, these same people will likely balk at claiming that we should be forced to serve celebrations of racial sin.
If, like the Pharisees, you want to bind the conscience of all believers to a standard that is difficult, if not impossible, to support by Scripture, the least you can do is to argue for its broad application. Tell us that the white baker is not only obligated to serve a same-sex wedding but that the African-American baker is obligated to bake a cake for the Aryan Nation's national convention.
If you want us to follow your legalistic argument, then at least have the courage to follow it to all its logical implications.
If you are “saved” and know you are ‘saved” then it would not matter what actions you take because you have already made it and it would not matter how horrendous or little the sin would be. I’m just taking the argument to its logical conclusion.
WADR, it is pretty likely that Jesus kept Kosher. No bacon for Him.
It does make the point, but how much EFFORT it takes. A lie’s travelled half way around the world while the truth’s still putting on its boots. Somehow Jesus was appealing to some sinners. They knew they were sinners but felt drawn to Him. Theoretically believers, having His Spirit within them, can have the same appeal.
Or not. The Lord’s perfect example failed to register with many. As explained in the piece, his generosity to “the sick” ( who need a doctor) was turned around and used as a slander—”a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners”.
You mean the squirrels are sinning? :-)
The author keeps saying Jesus ate with sinners “at the places where they congregated.” However, the occasions when the Gospel specifically mentions Jesus’s eating with sinners are when He dined at the house of Zacchaeus in Jericho, and when He ate with Matthew the tax collector after He had said, “Follow me.”
In both cases, the host (Zacchaeus or Matthew) had invited his friends to meet the man who had called him to a converted life.
Jesus was dining with a Pharisee, Simon, when He was approached by “a woman who was a sinner,” by implication a prostitute. I don’t really get the impression from the Gospel that everyone in the room was sinless, until *that woman* walked in to repent ... no matter what the respectable male invitees thought of themselves.
That's some darned sound advice!
Good points.
Mark 2
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The reality is that America’s government and leaders of society, and much of society, is heathen or pagan.
If sodomy were still illegal (and the law was actually enforced, as most laws are selectively enforced today) then this would not be an issue; the moment someone admitted to being a sodomite to two or more witnesses, they could be arrested.
But since “we” - that is America - turned away from God, we now have gotten what “we” the people asked for: our civil laws defy God’s Law more and more directly.
The first priority is getting the laws corrected.
If the laws are not corrected, Bible-believing Christians will be subjected to far worse pain than having to bake cakes for sodomite weddings.
Just think of the toleration of all that sin in the local town to begin with. Why was nothing done ? Why are the laws not being corrected ? Sodomites are tolerated in every way - with the full support and backing of the government.
Do we think that refusing to bake them a cake is going to have any good effect ?
The “undecideds” on the issue, the secular “middle” in America - many of them no doubt think the refusal makes Christians look petty. They won’t think of that, generally, as “standing up for what you believe in”.
We need to get busy and speak with, market to, meet with, engage in any way with as many “secular undecideds” as possible to enlighten them on the results of letting sin run rampant. We need to convince them so they take it on as their issue. IMHO, I would NOT beg, plead, whine, threaten, get excited, whatever. I would simply say if we as a society embrace open, habitual and grave sin, we’re heading down the societal toilet. Not just sodomy, but all grave sins. Then just remind them that the 2nd table of the Law simply builds upon the 1st; without the first table, there is no reason or foundation for making our civil laws adhering to the second. Without God’s Law, people come up with all sorts of crazy legal systems of their own, that are all doomed to misery and failure.
Today we (America as a nation) think of basing civil society on the Bible as not only “weird”, but actually wrong !
Three centuries ago, it would have been commonly thought of as not only crazy and stupid, but wickedly evil to NOT base civil society upon God’s Law.
Three centuries ago, most of the heinous lies and corruption we see that produces so much crime and sin we see today simply would not fly in America; the offenders would be lucky to be ridden out of town on a rail, if not arrested, tried and convicted for their crimes, just for coming up with the wicked schemes that government and new world order comes up with.
Was there pie for dessert?
The best comment on this thread.
imo
Here is a good one: The first bar band I played in had six members. Four of them were strong Mormons.
I do tell people that I “Dine with tax collectors” quite a bit. I’m in “bar bands” here in KY, but they are not “sinning” when I’m there. In fact, the clubs I play are just couples and friends getting together and mingling and dancing. It can be a lot of fun. None of the band members are “overt” Christians except for me. But I really do see it as akin to what Jesus was doing. We talk about God and Jesus quite a bit and I do the same with customers during breaks at gigs.
Every now and then some woman may get on stage and try to dance with me, though. It is imperative to not make eye contact.
That seems logical to you, but it’s not biblical. It’s certainly not how someone saved by the free grace of God should think. Once someone has been truly saved he hates his sin and is increasingly aware of, and grieved by, his sin. I could respond with numerous passages of Scripture, but I suggest you study Romans 6 in particular.
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
—Romans 6:1-2
Why would anyone, ever, place the word, saved, in quotes? Generally the use of quote marks, in a context such as this, implies so-called,as in so-called-salvation. Isn't that a denigration of the whole concept of being saved? I don't understand.
When you are saved, your body becomes a temple for the Holy Spirit.
The question is do you want to drag God into a strip joint?
“Seems like looking at naked chicks and eating meatloaf are mutually exclusive things in my mind.”
Well, obviously you’ve never tried the combo!
“If you are “saved” and know you are ‘saved”...”
Right there is where your argument falls on its face. Nobody can truly know they are saved, we can only hope and have faith. Christ knows who is saved, but the rest of us can’t be so certain.
“The question is do you want to drag God into a strip joint?”
God’s already there, regardless of what we do, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.