To Mick Mooney:
Having read your post – WWJD: What Would Jesus Do? Do You Really Want to Know? (link below) – I feel the responsibility to rebuke you. And since your post was public, my response is public.
It is, of course, a bad thing when someone sins. What’s worse, however, is when someone encourages others to sin. What’s worst of all, though, is using the words of God to encourage others to sin – because it makes it seem as if God Himself is okay with sinful behavior. In this post you have written, you are doing what’s worst of all. You are selectively referring to – and distorting – passages of the Bible to make a point that violates the very spirit and intent of the Bible. You are proving that the most despicable kind of lie is the half-truth – a lie disguising itself as the truth.
You say Jesus “had become friends with prostitutes, was hanging out with ‘sinners’,” but that’s misleading. The truth is the prostitutes and sinners, precisely because they were ashamed of their prostitution and sin, came to hear His teaching about righteousness (Luke 5:8; 19:7-8).
You say Jesus bought “people who were already drunk yet another round of beers,” but the story of turning water into wine gives no indication that the people at the wedding were drunk (John 2:1-11). And the people Jesus designated to pass on His teaching – the apostles – warned repeatedly that drunkenness was something to be avoided, not embraced (Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Peter 4:3-5)
You use the example of Jesus defending the woman caught in adultery from being stoned as if He had justified her behavior. Yet He told her, “From now on sin no more” (John 8:11). Therefore, your analogy supporting abortion is based on the misrepresentation that Jesus had no problem with adultery – which He obviously did (Matthew 5:27-30; 19:9; Luke 18:20). His opposition was to stoning – not to a moral standard.
When you say that Jesus opposed the Pharisees you are right, and when you suggest that He despises how the modern-day institutional church merchandises His life and truth you are right as well. However, when you go on to suggest that the alternative Jesus offers is to leave people in their drunkenness, adultery, abortions, and other sins – and even to justify those behaviors – you have done Him and your readers a terrible wrong.
In response to the Pharisees’ laws, you are presenting Jesus as offering lawlessness or licentiousness as an alternative. On the contrary, Jesus’ alternative is a greater law than that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). For example, while the Pharisees said adultery was bad, Jesus said that even thinking about it was bad (Matthew 5:27-30). The Pharisees’ laws went only so far as outward behavior (Matthew 23:25-28) while Jesus’ laws went to the heart – where sins – like adultery, abortion, and drunkenness – first take root. A person who took Jesus’ rules concerning adultery seriously would never commit it because he or she would never engage in the thoughts that could ultimately lead to that act.
Therefore, Jesus’ opposition to the Pharisees is the half-truth of your post. Your lie is about the reason for His opposition. You suggest He had no moral standards, when the truth is that He was opposed to the Pharisees because 1) while they had good standards they did not live up to them (Matthew 23:3) and therefore were hypocrites, and 2) their standards were not high enough – that is, they practiced their righteousness only before men instead of before God who sees the heart (Matthew 6:1; 23:5).
The greater law of Jesus is love. Love forgives sin, but it does not condone sin. Therefore, I can forgive you for writing a post like this, but I cannot condone it. I cannot condone it because it is particularly reprehensible – making victims of readers who are only casually familiar with the Bible. They will recognize your allusions to actual Bible passages but lack enough knowledge to understand exactly how you are distorting them. I can forgive you because you did not come up with this idea on your own. You were influenced to think this way, and those who influenced you therefore deserve more condemnation than you do. You’ve simply bought into modern society’s cherished hope that Jesus, if He exists at all, is upset only by religious hypocrisy, and, other than that, practically “anything goes” when it comes to the pursuit of human pleasure.
Your post presents a false dichotomy: either side with those who think adultery, abortion, drunkenness and other such things are okay or else be a Pharisee. There is a third way, and it is the way of Jesus. The way of Jesus is to live up to the moral standards of God – to walk before Him thinking only thoughts of which you’re sure He’d approve. The way of Jesus is to get the log out of our own eyes for the specific purpose of then being able to remove the speck from our brother’s – not to go around saying that foreign objects in the eye are not such a bad thing.
What would Jesus do (WWJD)? Certainly not what you propose. For if God’s intention was to leave us in our sins (as your post suggests), then what need was there for Him to subject Himself to rejection, torture, and death? Did mankind really need the crucifixion of the Son of God in order to make them feel okay about getting drunk, having an abortion, or cheating on a spouse?
Mick, I pray that you’ll repent and seek to undo the damage you have done with your post. (Until then, I’ve written this post on your behalf.) Jesus is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. He came to lift us from our sins – all our sins, whether they be sins like adultery or sins like religious hypocrisy.
WWJD: What Would Jesus Do? Do You Really Want to Know? | Mick Mooney. (2 min read; 302 words)