Author Luke Timothy Johnson has an article on the Commonweal magazine website (by Luke Timothy Johnson. Commonweal. Volume CXXXIV, Number 12. June 15, 2007) in which he claims Christianity while ignoring Jesus. Luke Johnson advocates for dismissing the teaching of Jesus against hypocrisy so that Luke Johnson and others may feel comfortable with homosexuality. Jesus taught that we are not to be harmful. He said to us to go into the world being harmless as doves. If homosexuality or any other behavior (war, greed, etc.) is knowingly harmful and we are able to choose not to do it (and we are able to choose not to be harmful), then that behavior is antichrist.
Johnson wants to point to the differences between the Old and New Testament as proof that we may continue on beyond the revelation of Jesus Christ. He does not accept Jesus as the final, definitive path blazer whom we are to follow to God.
Contrary to Johnson's excuses for knowingly excusing harmfulness, real Christianity is about doing away with all excuses for selfish behavior, which behavior is always harmful in the end. It always leads astray. Absolutely nothing Jesus did or said deviates from the correct path all the way to God. There is no revealing of a new path extending from the end of the one Jesus showed. Jesus's path does not terminate short of God only to have people stand at the end wondering whether or not the path of condoning homosexual or other behavior is greater enlightenment leading further on toward God.
To use Luke Timothy's interpretive method renders the body as the arbiter of what is right or wrong, in which case, who needed Jesus to come along saying that if a part of the body offends pluck it out or cut it off? If homosexuals are born as such and that behavior must then be accepted and condoned, then there is nothing stopping pedophiles from asserting the same about themselves. Yet, Luke makes a distinction between homosexuals of a certain type and the rest of homosexuals and all pedophiles. In fact, Luke attempts to say that certain homosexuality is not harmful. However, that is an error. In and of itself and regardless of any other qualifiers, Homosexuality deviates from the harmless: The unselfish path taught and demonstrated by Jesus.
I have written a post on the subject, "Homosexuals: What they ignore." I suggest those who have not read it do so before chiming on about how Christians are to condone homosexual behavior.
Such behavior is caving into harmful, selfish deviation and aberration. They don't want to give up their lustful appetite.
Also, Luke Johnson is arguing against so-called conservatives (false conservatives) and Fundamentalists (false fundamentalists). He points to things in the writings of Paul also that don't jibe with so-called modernity — such as women having to cover their heads. Well, again I say that Jesus is the standard. We have nothing from Jesus that indicates that it is critical that women cover their heads for the reasons given by Paul. Is it harmful that they don't? It is not harmful in general when women go about with their heads uncovered in private or public. It is though harmful when they engage in lesbianism. That behavior is the slippery slope. Those who condone it will fall short. They have not entered the strait gate and are therefore not on the narrow way that leads to the real life.
They are caving into harmful lust that negatively impacts upon others as well and regardless of how secretive the lesbians may be about their activity. It does spiritual damage to the mind/body that does ripple out into creation. The evil spirit does manifest itself.
It is inconsistent behavior. It opens the floodgates for all other error. It conditions the soul (individually and societally) for making additional bad choices down the road.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)