Blogger Steve Boese at A Tenable Belief has been spending too much time digging through the archives of exgay performer and activist Stephen Bennett.
In an undated video linked near the top of his personal testimony page, Bennett says:
We need to love the sinner, but we don’t need to love the sin. We need to love and respect all individuals, but we don’t need to tolerate. Jesus was not a person who tolerated. When the woman was caught in adultery, what did Jesus say to her? “No man condemneth thee, so go and continue in your adultery?” No. [Jesus said,] “Go and sin no more.” God is not a god of tolerance. And when you really think about it — this is really radical, what I’m about to say, and I don’t want people to misconstrue this — God is a very bigoted god.
In his effort to glamorize bigotry, Bennett misdefines tolerance: He suggests that it is bigoted and intolerant to say “go and sin no more”; Bennett then affirms bigotry.
But the evenhanded and cautious rejection of unethical conduct is neither intolerant nor bigoted.
It is tolerant to reject what one considers a subjective ethical wrong while declining to defame, bully or prosecute the presumed offender. Showing mercy and humility toward presumed offenders is neither permissive nor morally relativistic; it is a frank acknowledgment that most presumed offenses are not worthy of harsh punishment and that one’s own subjective behaviors may be comparably offensive or imperfect.
It is intolerant, however, to discriminate harshly and dishonestly against some presumed offenders while granting special privileges or exemptions from criticism to one’s own potential offenses. It is bigoted to assume and to teach — with little or no viable evidence — that an entire class of persons is without exception subhuman, corrupt, immoral, lesser than oneself.
A genuinely moral God — or person — does not make sloppy, ignorant, false, prideful, unflattering, and exploitative assumptions about entire categories of people. But Bennett does preach such assumptions. And that may make Bennett ungodly.
A tolerant God may tell sinners — including Bennett — to go and sin no more, when that same God could alternatively be a bigot and smash entire communities for the sins of a scattered few individuals.
Bennett seems to be saying, “I am a bigot and proud of it. And God is made in My image, therefore God is a bigot, too.” Mainline Christians would consider such talk blasphemy. Unfortunately, there seem to be little disincentive against blasphemy among exgay and antigay movement leaders these days.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery…” is a Commandment.
“Thou shalt commit anti-gay bigotry…” is not.
The more relevant parable is the Good Samaritan. In a nutshell, Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors as ourselves — The Good Samaritan used his own bandages, wine, oil, donkey, and money to care for a hurt man he did not know. This was after three religious leaders had previously walked by the same man and didn’t help that same injured man. Christ’s question and comments afterwards were about who was the better neighbor? Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). That law would be “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). Since the story Good Samaritan in some way is a parable on how a good neigbor ahould act with people he or she doesn’t know, it seems illogical to draw the conclution that Christ was more worried about condemning his neighbors than being their good neighbor. If Christian faithful follow these two laws found in Matthew 22:37-40, then it appears that they would fulfill what Christ wants most of us in life. It would probably impress non-Christians and non-religious right Christians more if instead of publicly focusing first on the “decay” that religious right people believe gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people cause to society, Christian activists publicly focused first on the tenants found in Matthew 22:37-40 and James 1:27.
I cannot understand why anyone would find the God of evangelical/conservative “Christianity” worthy of worship. They seem to believe in a petty, spiteful, mean-spirited and capricious God who is more a bully than a higher power.
Autumn, I was taught that the tale of the Good Samaritan was the most important of Jesus’ teachings – that it embodied the basic substance of Christian belief, so I am so glad you brought it up. How could the same God who would reward the Good Samaritan cast someone into hell for all eternity simply because they failed to pray in the correct church? Or failed to obtain the “appropriate” sanction for their relationship? Or followed their hearts and loved another human being? I can’t see it.
It has also been slowly dawning on me that the whole “we don’t accept other sins” argument is completely incorrect when it comes to adultery. The Protestant churches have been, for at least the last century, celebrating adultery by “remarrying” those who are divorced – an act that is specifically prohibited in the Bible they claim to follow. Yet we are expected to completely accept this “immoral lifestyle” as an appropriate alternative to real marriage, while they bleat on about gays and lesbians.
CPT_Doom said:
The Protestant churches have been, for at least the last century, celebrating adultery by “remarrying” those who are divorced – an act that is specifically prohibited in the Bible they claim to follow.
This has bothered me as well. I have put the question to a number of “Fundamentalist Christians” with whom I am friends and none can truly answer it. The closest they have come is to say that the initial marriage was a sin but once forgiven the new marriage is a sacred bond. This sounds to me very much like rationalization to avoid what would certainly be a sticky issue for the churches.
Of course, if gay marriage truly is a sin (hypothetical for the sake of argument), then the fact that so many others ignore the command about divorce and remarriage, while putting those folks in a bad situation, would not make gay marriage any less a sin. So I don’t know how far this argument would go in support of gay marriage, other than to make a few people re-examine their own lives a bit.
David
Of course, if gay marriage truly is a sin (hypothetical for the sake of argument), then the fact that so many others ignore the command about divorce and remarriage, while putting those folks in a bad situation, would not make gay marriage any less a sin. So I don’t know how far this argument would go in support of gay marriage, other than to make a few people re-examine their own lives a bit.
True, but I don’t see any “Christian” church – including the Roman Catholic church – arguing that ALL divorced/remarried couples must be considered negative influences on society, or that they be barred from adopting children (even though second and above marriages have a high – and increasing – risk of break-up, one of the key arguments against legal recognition of GLBT couples), or suffer any other reduction in their civil rights, despite choosing an immoral lifestyle.
And what about heresy? The Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are not exactly in agreement about the theologies they practice, and all of them preach the others are, to some extent, “wrong” religions. In the extreme, for example, Southern Baptists and Mormons are not even considered Christian by the Catholic church. Yet again, there is no move to limit the participation of heretics (however defined by whatever group) in society, or remove them from the pool of adoptive parents – despite the fact they will indoubtedly indoctrinate children into “false” religions for which Stephen’s bigoted God will condemn them (both parents and children).
In fact, there is an inherent level of respect that nearly all religions in this country give to nearly all other schools of thought – until you hit homosexuality. It brings us back again to the idea that “Christians” do not condemn all “sins” with the same fervor, but single out the GLBT community for special abuse.
I feel sorry for some self-professed Christians. If only there wasn’t this Jesus fellow with all the things he taught, it would be so much easier.
He said crazy things like worry about your own faults and sins (the beam in your eye) before you pay any attention to the other guy’s problems (the mote in his). He was irresponsible by suggesting that the religous leader was less admirable than a social and religous outcast (a Samaritan – they weren’t good Bible-believing Jews, you know). He socialized with the sinners but not with the church folk. And he reserved his condemnation for preachers – he called them tombs, pretty on the outside but just full of death.
In fact, he didn’t say anything remotely acceptable by todays standards (other than the last half of a sentence “go and sin no more”). Thank God for that half of a sentence or he would have been no use whatsoever.
I guess the only thing a good Christian can do is ignore this nutty Jesus guy as best you can and focus on “God’s laws” and “God’s commandments”.
He’s such an embarrasment. If Jesus had only just kept his mouth closed, conservative Christians like Stephen Bennett would be so much happier.
Bennett thinks God is a bigot? I think this might be a good opportunity to repeat Anne Lamott’s saying:
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Timothy said:
I guess the only thing a good Christian can do is ignore this nutty Jesus guy as best you can and focus on “God’s laws” and “God’s commandments”.
That might be a bit broad – I’m sure you would agree that many, many Christians don’t follow that path. As for the commandments, if you love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, those other commandments will take care of themselves. He was the fulfillment, not the replacement.
I agree with your basic premise however, if people would concentrate more on being like Jesus and less on cherry-picking their favorite commandants, the world would be a much better place.
CPT_Doom, the point I was trying to make was that if someone is confronted with that argument, they can simply reply that you are correct, many in the Church are hypocrites and remarriage after divorce is wrong but the fact that many ignore one rule doesn’t make ignoring another right. I know what you are getting at and I agree – it bothers me that these things are selectively ignored. I don’t happen to think that gay marriage is a sin, but if someone did that argument probably wouldn’t get you far with them.
As a Christian, I don’t believe scripture supports the idea that this or that sin will send me to hell. But if I love God I won’t want to do what I know He does not like. That’s my basic theology on sin.
David
Sorry to be obsessive on this thread but…
“When the woman was caught in adultery, what did Jesus say to her? “No man condemneth thee, so go and continue in your adultery?” No. [Jesus said,] “Go and sin no more.””
That’s just plain incorrect. Here’s the actual wording of John 8:3-11 (NIV):
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.””
Stephen and the others pretend like there’s nothing in the story about “cast the first stone” or “neither do I condemn you”.
They take this story which is clearly a rebuke to the “family values” people and turn it into a justification of their condemnation. By limiting the entire story to the three words “sin no more” (as it’s interpreted in the King James Version), they come up with a meaning that is the exact opposite of what Jesus was teaching.
If it weren’t so destructive, it would be funny.
David,
“That might be a bit broad – I’m sure you would agree that many, many Christians don’t follow that path.”
Yes, but the ones who actually try to love their neighbors as themselves don’t usually call themselves “good Christians”. Usually only people focused on condemning others refer to themselves as “good” anything. It’s to distinguish themselves as the REAL bible-believing Christians instead of those nasty secular humanist psuedo-Christians over there at them heathen liberal churches. (“Those ain’t REAL churches. They let ya smoke and drink and dance on Saturday and still come to church on Sunday. I hear some of them even let the homos in. Praise God I go to a Bible-believing chuch where we don’t tolerate sin. We kick them homos and the like right out on their butts. We’re GOOD Christians”.)
Hence the irony in “…the only thing a good Christian can do…” is something that is the opposite of Christianity, ignoring the teaching of Christ.
Timothy said:
Yes, but the ones who actually try to love their neighbors as themselves don’t usually call themselves “good Christians”.
I understand what you are trying to say but I think you and I must have been in some very different churches. Of course, there are always some individuals who do think that way, but we usually lost them in what were often called “back door revivals”, i.e. the church became so interested in loving God and our neighbors that the legalists couldn’t take it and left (and that was a Southern Baptist church so it was hardly called “humanist”). I suppose I found more of what you describe in my early Pentecostal days but I moved on from that after a few years. I guess on that score I have been lucky.
David