John 3:30

He Must Increase, I Must Decrease

abortion

Rape, Incest and Abortion

by

On Facebook, someone posted “Can a Christian be pro-choice on the abortion issue?” The ensuing responses were varied.

I ended up in a bit of an argument with one of the commenters. Here’s the comment thread if you want some background to my comments. Clicking the screenshot will take you to the Facebook post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you see here is my response to Donald’s final comment with Donald’s comment included.

OK. Donald. I hate to have to do this, but maybe for the benefit of someone who will read this, if not you as well.

You wrote //** Ted, I love God as my Father and and His Son Yeshua (Jesus) as my Lord and Friend. I am sorry about my last response but that was the mentality of the logic being offered in the discussion that turned to Michael’s condemnations, assumptions and judgments. **//

1. Then you are not sorry. True apologies aren’t followed by excuses. Just stand by what you said.

2. I made no assumptions. I simply believed what you said. You said it is OK to murder a little baby in some situations, the situations you define as it being OK. I also cannot condemn, but I can warn you of God’s condemnation on those who approve of wickedness, promote wickedness or participate in wickedness (murder is wicked, BTW, child murder even more wicked maybe).

3. I am not ashamed of judgement. You are saying evil things, should a man of God sit by quietly when evil is spoken in the name of our Lord who you claim to represent?

You wrote //** I love God but to force a women to suffer continued injuries after being raped by stranger of family is unreasonable to me. **//

1. Here’s a tip – if you start a sentence with “I love God,” don’t include “but” in that sentence. This is my fear for you Donald, that you don’t really love God. Because God demands devotion above and beyond our apparent care for other people. (Luke 14:26)

2. And here’s the real point, Donald. You say you don’t want to force a woman to suffer continued injuries after being raped…this is noble. The problem is that becoming a murderer is actually the WORST thing for the woman. Abortion is a terrible thing to do TO a woman. So if you really don’t want woman to suffer further injury after rape or forced incest, encourage them to trust God, respect life and find healing in Jesus Christ rather than simply murdering an innocent baby. Nothing will be more detrimental to a woman in that situation than the belief that ending the pregnancy will make them feel better only to realize that ending the pregnancy NOT ONLY does not make them feel better but it will add the guilt of murder for the rest of her life on her conscience.

If you love women – tell them abortion is absolutely sinful and point them to Jesus Christ.

You wrote //** My point to Michael is that the sin needs to be stopped at it’s beginning! With sex deviants getting little to no time, many of those with wealth not even being approached for their indecencies, we instead continue the assault on the victim! ALL other abortions I detest and consider murder. Can I possibly be any clearer? **//

1. Logic is important. God is logical. He doesn’t change. He cannot deny Himself. So we, made in his image must be logical.

2. There is simply no logic to this statement. The post is about abortion. Do I really need to tell you I oppose rape? I do. But does the fact that I stayed focus on the topic of discussion somehow mean you can imply I am not against rape?

3. No you cannot be clearer, Donald. You have made it clear that murdering babies is OK if you think the baby’s conception was the result of some other sin where the mother was the victim of the sin. << This is actually what we are arguing about.

You wrote //** To Michael, it is more important as to the exception to my stance on abortion while ignoring the new Oregon gender abortion law that allows abortions for gender choice as late as 9 months pregnant! Michael did not seem to care about that one word worth! Shame .

1. Now what’s really interesting is how you try to twist everything with your final statement. You imply that I don’t care about an Oregon law regarding abortion when, in fact, my stance from the beginning has been anti-abortion entirely. If you did this intentionally, it is sin to misrepresent me in this way. If unintentional, then I guess I can overlook it.

2. You seem to be arguing that abortion for gender selection at a late age is unacceptable, but abortion for the reasons you gave, presumably at a younger age is OK. This is a sin and a logical fallacy. The age of the human being being slaughtered by abortion is irrelevant to the fact that it is murder. Reasons may seem more or less barbaric or irrational, but in the end, I’m not here to judge the apparent motives of the murdered, I’m here to judge the action of murder. In my view, I don’t need to play with these distinctions, I think abortion is murder all the time.

This is why I asked you when it ends, Donald. Can a woman who was raped have a baby then look at the baby, be reminded of her rapist and kill the child? Why not? Why would you force her to suffer again? By your logic you could not prevent that, unless you just want to play the “we can kill babies before they have faces or have formed hands” young gestational age argument.

Donald, your soul is important. You are either a sinner deceived into thinking he knows Christ or you are a seriously in error, immature in thinking, Christian. I challenge you to consider these things because I care about your soul. You are important too, just like raped women and babies.

If your response to this is just that I’m hateful and judgmental then you’re not reading. The entire post was written for your benefit, that you may see clearly. Are you offended that I say you do not see clearly? I’m sure you are. But faithful are the wounds of a friend. I care too much about Jesus, babies, women who are victims and you, Donald, to not tell you these things.

P.S. In case this needs to be said (which is really sad if it does) – I also believe rape to be wrong. And incest is wrong. And incestual rape is wrong. I do not think it is logical to say that because I oppose abortion I in any way endorse sinful acts which could result in pregnancy. If you read my anti-abortion arguments and come away believing I am defending rape you are seriously mistaken and likely misinterpreting intentionally to fulfill your own agenda or just lacking in some basic skills of reading and logic. I do not mean to be harsh or mean about this, but we need to be grownups who can have a conversation on one topic and not misrepresent the things people say.

Google & International Women’s Day

by

If you visit Google.com today (go ahead and click the link to open a new tab), you will see that for today’s doodle they have a nice representation of women who have done wonderfully heroic and academic things from all cultures. This is in celebration of International (Working) Women’s Day which is March 8.

A few quick thoughts:

  1. Watch the Google Doodle and you will notice that in almost every picture the woman is pictured with a child. It is as if Google cannot deny the importance of motherhood (which the good people at Google cannot).
  2. You will also notice that there isn’t a single depiction of a heroic, brave, woman having an abortion, going into an abortion clinic nor performing an abortion. It is as if this vital, empowering act of womanhood isn’t really something people celebrate when it is considered seriously.
  3. Finally, absent from the doodle are the woman who have risen up against the patriarchy to prostitute their bodies for men, display their talents in pornography or shake “what their momma gave ’em” at a strip club. What the doodler reveals to us unintentionally is the worldview that we are all born with written on our hearts (God’s law) which reveals to us the importance of women and their inherent value as made in God’s image, rather than what they can do for us sexually.

Even the average heathen has a conscience, one they cannot violate without consequence. Today is a day that many people celebrate the good contributions women make to our world – and a day many others celebrate their anti-God attitude toward a woman’s true, high calling from the Lord Jesus Christ.

So dear Christian, do you celebrate woman as God would have you? Do you want to tell others the good news that God Himself sent His only Son, Jesus Christ into the world to die for women who are sinners?

International Women’s Day is a cry for help. This isn’t a day that people finally have risen up to “stick it to the man” as so many are so certain. This is a day when women everywhere are being told their significance, their worth and their value are in how they contribute to a society, rather than found in another, Jesus Christ.

Women who pursue virtuous endeavors are to be lauded to the extent that they obey Christ’s commands for their lives and in the context where God has placed them, and this is righteous judgement for praising the accomplishments of a man or woman. Don’t get caught up in the social justice of it all.

I appreciate any comments you may want to leave for discussion. I have more to say, but want to keep the post under 500 words.

Abortion and Women as Victims

by

In light of recent debates and misinformation about the topic, I wanted to lay out my thoughts on the recent debate surrounding whether women should be held responsible if abortion is made illegal.

In particular, what I’m referring to is a quote from this article. (emphasis my own)

A consistent pro-life position can maintain that a woman who has an abortion may be morally culpable in the taking of an innocent life, and yet still recognize that in the interest of compassion and proximate justice (e.g., ensuring the conviction of abortionists) she should be treated solely as a second victim and not as a first accomplice.

My points below do not include Scripture references to help understand the situation. That has been handled aptly here and here.

1. I do not believe that EVERY woman, (that is, 100% of women who have an abortion), are murderers of the same degree. I acknowledge that a person may have been coerced or forced in some way which could legally exonerate her of guilt before the law. I also believe our system is already set up to be merciful when appropriate, to try children differently for crimes and take into account a suspect’s mental state when trying them for a crime.

For this reason, I do not believe we should label all women “solely” as victims, innocent of the murder of children, de facto. They should be labeled as suspects in the murder of a human and let the investigation and trial take place. Judges everywhere sentence people for different reasons based on a number of factors; why deny these same judges the chance to do their job in the case of abortive mothers?

2. I believe that there may be abortive mothers who may, in fact, not actually understand they are taking a human life, as the result of the insidious deceptive teaching they have been subjected to and whatever sheltering from reality they’ve experienced. I do not expect to put a 12 year old girl who has been a sex slave for years and has been forced to down plan-b pills into an electric chair. Again, our system is able to handle these exceptions. If you don’t trust our justice system to handle these circumstances, then there is no point in worrying about making laws, etc.

3. I do believe that, in a sense, every woman alive today is a victim of a society which objectifies them, teaches them to be sexually active, then leaves them with little or no assistance when that sexual activity has undesirable consequences. Women today are taught that children are a burden, pregnancy is negative, they’re #1, abortion isn’t murder, yada yada yada.

But I do not believe that the fact that they are victims of that type of situation makes them less culpable of the guilt of murdering their child. I’m ignorant of a number of laws, I’m sure, yet still responsible for my choices.

By the same logic, I do not believe that people who molest children ought to be considered not guilty because they were also victimized as a child. Everyone is a victim of something. That isn’t the question. The question is whether that victimhood exonerates their actions. Thinking this (innocence as the result of victimhood) can be determined universally is an error.

4. I do not believe that we would extend the same sentiments to a woman who drowned her 1 year old in the tub, or a woman who had a home abortion as some seem to want to extend to women who get abortions before birth at a clinic. If a woman came with the EXACT same excuses use for abortion to excuse suffocating her 3 day old infant, we would call her sick and twisted and call her an unfit mother. I believe it is a logic error to treat preborn so distinctly differently from the born. An error which exhibits a crude rejection of Scripture’s authority.

The idea that we would allow what we call more “humane” abortions in lieu of “more barbaric” ones is barbaric itself. I am no less guilty of murder if I put you to a calm sleep with carbon monoxide as if I shoot you and you bleed out to death. Our sense that somehow one is worse than the other is problematic and is the cause of our ill-fated attempts at incremental change. I see the argument: torture, for example is worse than not torture, but the ultimate crime of murder is still the same in essence.

5. My imagination’s ability or inability to conjure a way to handle the problem of prosecuting women isn’t a logical reason to oppose it or support it. The question is – what is right? How to handle the circumstance created by right laws is something we will have to work out as a society if we get that chance. Assuming we are able to criminalize abortion forensically, I will trust the Lord Jesus Christ to help us effect a system that doles out correct punishment, correction and mercy, according to His Will. Note: calling all abortive mother’s victims removes this possibility.

6. I have heard it said that calling abortive mother’s victims and keeping them from prosecution will help us convict abortionists. I say hogwash. Let’s say you could actually cite old cases that show that that is true – do we really want to mimic the way abortion was handled BEFORE Roe v Wade? It may be the worst argument I’ve heard.

Let’s go back to doing what we did as a country immediately before we became what we’ve now become. Hey, let’s do what immediately preceded (and possibly/probably contributed to) the legalization of abortion!

If you are having trouble with the inanity of that, I don’t know what can help. Honestly, I’m not trying to be rude or sound haughty, but the idea that doing the same thing which was tried historically and clearly seems to have utterly failed is astounding to me.

7. Ok. I get it. Do we drag every woman who ever had an abortion to court? (I don’t think that’s even on the table) See #5. We’ll have to deal with that. Courts take into account all sorts of factors when determining sentences and guilt and whom to prosecute, etc. And, as I think we are all aware, prosecutors exercise some discretion in lighter sentences – often based on the communicated remorse of the accused and their obvious rehabilitation. The point is, we have a system in place to handle all your exceptions. A system which will screw up sometimes.

8. Experience with abortion ministry is not required to be able to speak on the topic. I see folks who maintain sola scriptura in many areas espousing the idea that going to an abortion clinic and getting the finger from an abortive mother is helpful in determining victimhood (or lack thereof). Although I agree these experiences will confirm what we know from Scripture about most murderers, I do not agree that an opinion formed from Scripture on the topic outside of having participated in that ministry is irrelevant. Ultimately, we believe God opens the eyes of the blind to the truth.

Having said that, God may USE circumstances to help us to see His Scripture. That is, He may use the ordinary means of experience to help us to understand what His Scripture was already saying. And those people DO have helpful things to say in the matter.

But, suffice to say, if every abortive mother was kind and gentle and friendly on her way into a clinic, and her baby was killed with the utmost of gentleness and pain free-ness possible, that would have no bearing on the validity of the argument about whether abortive women are victims or not. Abortive mothers may be, (and usually are) morally responsible for the murder of an innocent life (as God sees it).

9. The idea that abortive mothers will testify against the very people they paid to get the illegal abortion is asinine. Maybe in some cases…but my guess is not without the leverage of their own guilt before the law laid out before them. I do understand there are legal difficulties there, but I don’t see women who obtain illegal abortions all of a sudden testifying against those people, as a general rule. Even if it worked, the cost outweighs the benefit.

Conclusion

To deny women the guilt associated with violation of God’s perfect laws and character is to deny them the very thing they need the most – God’s whole counsel to lead them to His kindness and repentance through faith in Jesus Christ. What I am saying is, in our attempt to think we are being merciful and compassionate, we are being hateful to women by not telling them the whole truth about their guilt before a holy God. Sending the mixed message of victimhood will only tend to assuage any conscience they had about it if the Lord wouldn’t intervene in some other way.

People who love and support women will stop treating them as if they are helpless, disillusioned victims of society and give them the truth about abortion, murder, God’s wrath and judgement. And one way we do that is through God’s ordained means of government enacting good laws.

Ultimately, this discussion is very philosophical. We aren’t actually dealing with this circumstance now. But how we view this discussion shows what we really think of the unborn and the people who kill them. It shows our hearts. It shows whether we really trust God to take care of us or if we think we need to take things into our own hands, by applying our human reasoning rather than God’s reasoning.

It is illogical to call abortion a criminal act, an act of murder and not at least keep open the possibility that every party to the act is guilty in some way of murder to some degree. And to compromise that truth for the sake of “proximate justice” and “hopeful prosecution of some” ultimately leads only to the loss of the argument entirely.

Before diving into comment, please read the linked to articles in the introduction.

Would Christ Call Someone Unchristlike?

by

I have a general sense that wherever possible we try to use Biblical terminology. This means we say words that people often find offensive. For example, we, as Christians, should not be afraid to call transgression of God’s law “sin,” rather than “a mistake” or “missing the best.”

I think an area where this can get awful hairy is that we need to be careful to define terms. For example, when I grew up I believed the definition of adulterer was someone who was married who cheated on his or her spouse. I now believe differently (Matthew 5:28). So if you had called me an adulterer, I would have been offended at least partially because I didn’t really believe I had committed adultery according to the Biblical definition.

But the problem was not with you, it was with me. I was the adulterer by the Biblical definition of the term.

So here’s today’s rub. Recently, a writer named Karen Swallow Prior (KSP) wrote an article where she proposed calling a woman a murderer who has had an abortion is not only inflammatory, but is unchristlike.

Deut 5:17 You shall not murder.

Much kerfuffle has occurred as the result; and if you click that link now, you will be the beneficiary of some clarifying comments by KSP which I find helpful in clarifying her meaning.

My concern is twofold. 1) I believe the gauging of the terminology is being subjectively measured based on the reaction (inflammation?) of the objects of the terms using an unbiblical pragmatism and 2) I find the entire concept contradictory and hypocritical. I will try to flesh these out briefly and if there is disagreement I’ll provide clarification later. 🙂

I am also going to reserve my comments for the use of the term ‘murder’ in reference to abortion and ‘murderer’ in reference to those who have had an abortion, paid for an abortion, performed an abortion, or coerced or approved of someone having an abortion. #OxfordCommasRule I understand the argument about the other potentially inflammatory terms KSP brought up in her article and may be sympathetic to those.

1. When KSP refers to certain terminology as inflammatory, I believe what she means it that the word ‘murder’ is unnecessarily inflammatory. Certainly a professional writer of high intelligence isn’t against ANY language that could be inflammatory, right? I can’t even imagine that. The very nature (may I say purpose?) of the written word is to evoke a response from the reader. So I think her point is that there are other terms that can be used to communicate the same thought or message which are not “trigger words,” so to speak.

For example, the Bible doesn’t use every possible descriptive term for a man “knowing” his wife when communicating the reality of what is going on when Bible couples made babies. There are certain ways to describe that thought which are, shall I say, more tasteful than others. So the same thought is conveyed without language which may incite the wrong thoughts in the reader.

But KSP offers no reasoning for why this term – ‘murder’ – is so inappropriate. She simply asserts that is it inflammatory language. Considering the Bible’s use of the word murder (repeatedly Luke 18:20, Mark 7:21, Mark 10:19, Matthew 23:35, Matthew 23:31, Matthew 15:19, Jeremiah 7:9), I would argue that there is nothing wrong with the term.

Exodus 21:22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Is there any doubt that God considers abortion murder based on simply Exodus 21:22-25 above?

Now’s here my conjecture: I think that we have a situation where someone is not fully trusting that it is God who draws people unto himself and that any people he draws will come. (John 6:44, John 6:37). This is an important theological point. If you don’t really believe that God sovereignly brings the elect to himself, and that it is His Word that is the power, then you absolutely need to find ways to improve upon the Biblical language to reach our culture. Not only for salvation’s sake, but for culture change.

But, if you believe that God’s Word is the power unto salvation, and God’s thoughts (revealed through His Word) are higher than our thoughts, then you cannot possibly believe you can use better language than the Bible itself uses.

In my opinion, the reason folks want to change the vocabulary is they believe there will be an effectiveness which cannot be achieved because of what they perceive as the usual reaction to God’s actual Word. Then there are people like myself, who are 100% OK with continuing to preach God’s Word and simply trusting Him with the results…even in the face of apparent ineffectiveness – basically: me not seeing the results I expect.

KSP references Prov 14:12 in her added paragraphs to the article – ironically committing the mistake warned about therein, in my estimation. It is KSP and people who believe as she does in this situation who are not trusting in the Lord’s provision for this battle and are trying to do things in a way which seems right to man. The mere fact that Jesus and the writers of the NT had no issue with the term is enough for me to say striking the term is not an example of the fruit of the Spirit in someone’s life. (James 4:2 for example). The fruit of the Spirit is gentleness doesn’t mean we will always find words that don’t offend or inflame. It is man’s way to deviate from Scriptural language…not to stick to stubbornly.

It is quite subjective anyway. As soon as we strike the word murder from our vocabularies, there will be another term which burns the consciences of the (warning, trigger word ahead) heathen which we will be asked to strike so we can better “have conversation.” Instead, let’s be ambassadors for Christ and simply proclaim His excellencies in His language and decry rebellion against Him the same way.

It is an unbiblical view of the power and sufficiency of God’s Word which I believe is the root of calling the word murder inflammatory and unchristlike.

2. I find the entire concept of the article contradictory and hypocritical.

Secondly, and finally, (I know, I said “brief”), I believe KSP commits the very same “atrocity” she seems so concerned about. Let me explain: the words that KSP used in the article, in fact, inflamed many people! In fact, I would say it was predictable that JD Hall would be inflamed by her article (no offense to JD meant, he should be inflamed).

But that point alone, I question whether KSP could even make that assertion? If it is so wrong to say something which can inflame – then she can’t even say what she said because that statement itself is inflammatory! Albeit I think that is foolish. I think it is OK to say inflammatory things, the question is whether those things are objectively true and/or reasoned from objective truth and Scripture’s teaching.

Does that mean we need to say ‘everything’ that is possibly true in every possible way we could say it? No. Does it mean we must never use words which are predictably inflammatory? No, I don’t believe so. Because that is what Christ did, did he not? He used terms which were inflammatory enough to get him killed! And He knew he was doing it and the reaction he’d get, yet he remained perfectly gentle and meek and all those things that are misunderstood about the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal 5:22)

Maybe being gentle and meek isn’t the same as abandoning Scriptural terminology for the sake of a hearer’s conscience and sensitivities?

So here’s the question: if it is unchristlike to call someone who kills an innocent human being a murderer, how unchristlike must it be to call someone unchristlike at all? I mean for basically any reason? The fact is that we are to label people unchristlike for acting in a way which is contrary to how Christ acted or His Holy Spirit would direct us through His Word. But referring to crimes against God and humanity in plain terms is never something condemned in Scripture. If calling a murderer a murderer is unchristlike, then calling someone who is unchristlike “unchristlike” is a great sin!

So would Christ call someone unchristlike? Absolutely. But not in the worldview espoused by the KSP article. That Christ is only capable of inviting people over for no-strings-attached bar-be-cues and hoping the person will ask him where He got the gleam in his eye. So either KSP is right and her article cannot be considered meaningful or she is wrong, in which case her article cannot be considered meaningful.

I am not professing to know KSP’s heart; I’m not calling her a non Christian, nor do I even for a moment pretend she wouldn’t really want to end or at least outlaw abortion. What I am saying is the article in question commits logical errors and exhibits a view of Scripture which I perceive as “lower” than the way most of us think it ought to be perceived. I think it is a worldly influence which causes a person to abandon (at least partially) the Scriptural mandate to confuse the wisdom of the wise with God’s wisdom, and now our own.

That’s my 2 cents. I can tell you this from a personal experience. I would have loved if you would have not called me a racist prior to my salvation. I seriously found the term inflammatory. I hated hearing it. Yet that is what I was. And it really made no difference what you called it. I liked it and you were wrong in my eyes for calling what I did racism (despite the evidence). But God, who is rich in mercy, drew me to Himself and saved me. And once that occurred, the language didn’t bother me. My subjective feelings never really mattered, just God’s objective truth in the matter.

Whether It is Morally Justified to Kill

by

I would like to clarify my belief concerning whether one would be morally justified in taking the life of an abortionist.

As I am already on record as saying in 2011 (See here, last 4 paragraphs), I in no way am an advocate for the murder of an abortionist or even anyone involved in abortion.

To clarify further, I am referring to individuals choosing to execute their idea of justice (even if their idea comes from the Bible). I am not opposed to the government criminalizing the act of abortion. Subsequently, I would not be opposed if abortion was classified as premeditated murder, worthy of the death sentence – as executed by the government.

Recently, my attention was drawn to a blog post where I thought the morality of killing an abortionist during the act was ambiguous, at best. My further request for clarification on twitter by the author resulted in a number of dear brothers offering concern and correction for what they thought may have been my position.

My twitter interaction with the post’s author was intended to understand why, according to the post in reference, it would be morally wrong to kill an abortionist. What was unsaid and unclear in the twitter interaction is that I already had disagreed with the post’s premises which I believe lead to justified killing. Thus, my interaction was an attempt to get clarification from the author, or to show a clear contradiction to Scripture in the logical result of at least part of the post. I offer a screenshot where I highlighted the portion which I found to possibly support murder of an abortionist:

P&P Post

It is in regard to the fact that I would consider any abortionist in the act of abortion to fit this description that I posed my questions. I am not saying that Pulpit and Pen, in fact, endorses abortionist murder. I am saying that since they do not, this post, and the above paragraph in particular, blurs the lines. If I am the only person who could read this paragraph this way, then I’m sorry about that. It doesn’t appear that’s the case though from what I heard.

I appreciate the kind-hearted brothers who took time from their days to show care for my soul and also confront me and seek clarification. I apologize for my lack of clarity which caused some people to be disturbed.

I believe this 4 year old post is still worthy of your reading. I offer this quote below for your encouragement.

I trust that the preaching of the gospel and fervent prayer are the two greatest acts that anyone can do on behalf of the unborn.

Real Friendship Includes the Gospel

by

Real friendship includes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many will disagree with me for this nit-picky point, but it is a point to be made, however tangential to the primary argument it is. I discovered an article via Twitter this week.

Overall, the article made good points. Mostly the same rational points made by every reasonable article concerning the “gay marriage” and “photographers, bakers and florists” situation. The point of the article was to explain that refusal to do a gay wedding is not the same as refusal to provide services to homosexuals in general…and that general service refusal is not actually going on. This point was well made.

But read the following excerpt from this article At DennyBurk.com (emphasis my own):

Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Washington State who is being sued by the attorney general of the state for refusing to involve her business in a gay wedding. You can watch her in her own words in the video above, but here’s what happened. Stutzman had been serving a gay couple in her flower shop for over ten years. She considered the men to be her friends, and they considered her to be their friend. The two gay men said that throughout their decade long friendship, they did not know that Stutzman believed homosexuality to be a sin. She didn’t treat them any differently than anyone else. She was a friend to them and served them while knowing full well that they were gay.

Do you notice anything strange here? The two gay men said “they did not know that Stutzman believed homosexuality to be a sin” which followed a sentence about a decade long friendship.

Does that sound like friendship to you? Because it sure does not sound like friendship to me. The idea of calling yourself a friend to someone without having ever reached out to tell them how to be forgiven by God and reconciled through Jesus Christ would be laughable if it wasn’t so despicable.

Correction added 03/13/2015: I do not know for certain whether Stutzman shared the gospel with these men. What we may infer is that she didn’t confront their homosexual sin. It was wrong of me to assume she had not done so simply because they didn’t know her stance concerning sexual sin.

Friends love each other. Those who love others care more about others than themselves. When you love people, you tell them the gospel because you fear for his or her soul. (Romans 10:17)

I’m not talking about someone who claims to casually know a gay man, or has an acquaintance who is gay whom he barely saw. Remember, according to the story – the florist and these homosexual men were friends for a long time.

Friends don’t let friends go to hell without warning them. Friends care more about what is best for the other than their own feelings or fears or hurts. (Proverbs 18:24)

Real friendship includes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Look, my goal is not to bash this woman or her lack of evangelism. It is entirely possible that the “friendship” being described in the article is an exaggeration. My point is that IF you consider yourself to be a friend to someone, and you’ve never gotten deep enough in a relationship for them to know you believe the Bible then you are not really a friend. This applies equally to me. Street preaching and passing out tracts is no excuse. And those acts, although noble, are no help to your friend when he meets the Lord. We must reach out to people we know, including our neighbors and those we call friends.

If someone doesn’t know that Jesus is #1 in your life, then you aren’t really a good friend.

I get it. I have a LOT of casual acquaintances. People who know me, and I know them and I haven’t shared the gospel with them or handed them a tract…yet.

I’m not talking about those folks: like the person who calls you his friend even though you just walk by him daily in Starbucks because you go at the same time – or you’ve seen him 10 times at the gym and barely said a few words to each other.
I’m referring to the people in your life to whom you actually consider yourself a friend: the people who would act shocked tomorrow if you told them the truth about your faith. (2 Cor 6:14-18)

This is the ultimate problem with the method of evangelism called friendship evangelism about which Tony Miano has written and spoken extensively already.

Real friendship includes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Today is the day. Repent of your selfishness and your desire to be loved by men, and being making sure that people know what you believe. It would be better to simply be honest and forthright with them about it than to have them find out when you have to refuse them some service like what happened to the woman in the article. Worse, when all your “friends” find out you’re a Christian because people on Facebook start spamming your page to criticize your beliefs.

Just in case you are confused here’s a list of things I did NOT say nor imply:

  • You cannot be a friend to a nonbeliever or have a nonbelieving friend.
  • It is OK to refuse to help people because they are gay.
  • You must share the gospel with every person you meet or you are a bad Christian like the florist in the article.

In summary, here are things which I DID say or imply:

  • True friendship includes making known the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • If people around you are shocked that you are a Christian, you’re doing it wrong.
  • You and I are the problem. Not gays. Not the florist from the linked article. It is the failure of people like you and me to consistently share the gospel that is the problem.

So join me and let’s begin fixing the problem. Let’s herald the name of Christ and not be ashamed of the gospel for it is the power unto salvation. (Romans 1:16;10:13-14)

Because real friendship, real love, and actual Christlikeness include the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Added 03/13/2015: Although it is possible to “share the gospel” with someone and not confront their specific sin of homosexuality, I continue to maintain the position that to be considered friends with a person and for that person to have no idea that you consider homosexuality to be sin is problematic.

Many thanks to sister Kim Arnold for lovingly pointing out the fact that we truly do not know from the article whether Baronelle had share the gospel.