5 Most Abused Christian Terms

It is a general rule of life that the more important or valuable something is, the more chances are it will be abused and misused. The greater something is, the more it will be attacked and slandered and misrepresented. So we would expect that Christianity would receive such treatment on a regular basis – and it does.

The Christian faith is regularly abused and misused, as are key Christian terms and concepts. And sadly this is not just being done by non-Christians, but by believers as well. We have managed to mangle and manhandle basic Christian truth and doctrines time and time again.

wordSo let me offer five key terms and words of the Christian faith which are being abused every day. Sure, there would be other such terms we could add to the list, but certainly these five would be leading contenders on any thinking Christian’s list.

Jesus. It goes without saying that Christianity is Christ, so if you want to abuse and misuse the faith, then you begin with the person. Jesus has got to be the most misrepresented and most misunderstood person around. And of course behind all these faulty portraits of Jesus is Satan himself, who desperately does not want anyone to know the real Jesus.

So he gets atheists, secular humanists, leftists, religionists, New Agers, and uninformed Christians to present a plethora of images of Jesus – none of them representing the real Jesus of Scripture. Thus we have the hippy Jesus, the socialist Jesus, the greenie Jesus, the New Age Jesus, the syrupy sentimental Jesus, and so on.

Anything but the real Jesus. Anything but the creator and judge of the world who is fully God and fully man, the second person of the Trinity, and the one who has dealt with the sin issue so that we might get right with God the Father.

Instead, create a fake Jesus and offer him around to the masses, and you have basically destroyed biblical Christianity. That is why we see this all the time. Satan does not want us to know the real Jesus so he has become expert at creating millions of counterfeit and fraudulent Jesuses.

And far too many Christians have done exactly the same. We have a Jesus who is all about love, who would never harm a fly, and would never speak ill of anyone or anything. The Jesus of the book of Revelation is entirely absent, as is much of the Jesus of the gospels, including the table-throwing Jesus.

I speak more to this here: Which Jesus? | Published: 4.10.14 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Love. Speaking of love, this is another biblical word absolutely gutted of its scriptural content, and filled with every sort of dopey and humanistic foolishness imaginable. Love is now almost entirely viewed as emotion, as feelings, as mushy sentiment.

But biblical love is always about willing the highest good for the other person. True love wants the best for the other person. And that best is of course God’s best. Thus if you really love a person, you will want them to have all that God wants for them: a relationship with himself, sins forgiven, bondages broken, lives transformed, etc.

And the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. If you genuinely love someone, you care deeply about them and are concerned about their welfare – spiritual and otherwise. Indifference and apathy are the opposites to love. But real love involves hate.

If you love God, you will love what he loves and hate what he hates. God hates sin, and so should we. God hates that which prevents people from knowing him, and so should we. To love a drug addict means hating the drugs which are destroying him.

To love your wife means hating that which would cause her harm, or puts her in danger. Thus human love, like divine love, is a jealous love, rightly understood. Such love cares enough about the individual to strongly oppose that which would harm that person. It certainly is not about tolerating everything and putting up with anything.

I speak more to this here: On Biblical LovePublished: 12.8.08 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Judge. This of course is one of the most abused words of our time. In fact, Matthew 7:1 is perhaps the most abused verse in the entire Bible. The idea that Christians should never judge is as unbiblical as you can get. Everywhere Scripture commands us to judge, to discern, to assess, and to make moral pronouncements and judgments.

Not to do so is a sign of disobedience and rebellion. All that Jesus warned about in the Matt. 7 passage was hypocritical judging: attacking someone else when you are doing the same thing. That of course is wrong, but biblical judging is never wrong.

You cannot live the Christian life if you do not judge. Paul even tells us that one day we will judge the angels, so we had better get to it now in this life. But the worldly notions of tolerance and acceptance have so seeped into the churches today that we actually think we must not judge.

That is a recipe for disaster, and that is why the Christian faith in the West is so anaemic and sickly. We refuse to judge sin in the camp, false doctrine, false prophets, and so on. Instead we just put up with all this. That is a sure-fire way to shipwreck our faith and destroy the church.

I speak more to this here: Thou Shalt JudgePublished: 8.10.08 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Sin. As already mentioned, a faulty understanding of who Jesus is and why he came will also involve a faulty understanding of sin. Indeed, one of our big problems here is that we simply no longer even talk about sin. Not only does the surrounding pagan culture have no concept of sin, but so too do most believers.

Go to any church service today and you will be hard-pressed to hear much about sin, and the corollary doctrines such as the holiness of God, the wrath of God, judgment to come, hell, the cross, and repentance. All these key biblical truths are being heard less and less in too many churches today.

We no longer take sin seriously today because we no longer take God seriously. Instead of a holy and righteous God who hates sin and detests iniquity, we have a namby-pamby God who is simply a celestial butler here to do our every bidding.

We hang on to a faulty understanding of divine love while we jettison all the other key components and attributes of God. So of course sin gets downplayed and ignored in such a situation. And then sin becomes simply whatever the world says it is: eg, being intolerant, judgemental, non-inclusive, etc.

I speak more to this here: On SinPublished: 14.9.10 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Heresy. This may seem like a surprise inclusion to my list, but I hear this term thrown around every day, and mostly it is being grossly misused and abused. The sad truth is, far too many believers will call someone a heretic or label their beliefs heresy simply if they happen to differ from their own points of view.

Guess what folks? Someone is not a heretic if he happens to have a different slant on eschatology, or ecclesiology, or church government, or worship, or a million other secondary matters. A person is not a heretic if he happens to have a different view on the end times, be it premillennialism, postmillennialism, the rapture theory, and so on.

I am not a heretic if I support a SDA candidate for POTUS such as Ben Carson. I am not a heretic if I think we can work together with others on a temporary basis as cobelligerents to deal with things like abortion or the attacks on marriage.

I am not a heretic if I like the writings of those of other faith traditions, such as a Chesterton or a Tolkien. I am not a heretic if I find some biblical truth in aspects of Calvinism, and Arminianism, and so on. I am not a heretic if I have a glass of wine, enjoy eating meat, or listen to B.B. King once in a while.

I am a heretic if I deny the historic core beliefs of biblical Christianity, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and so on. If one denies the content of the great historic creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, then yes, we can start talking heresy. But please spare me when you attack another believer as a heretic for simply having a differing view on some secondary matters of the faith.

I speak more to this here: On Heresy HuntersPublished: 9.4.14 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

One can easily come up with another five such terms, even another 25. So more articles may be forthcoming on this theme. But these five will do for a start. Let us resolve to not be guilty of such abuse and misuse of core biblical terms.

[1479 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 12.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: billmuehlenberg.com "5 Most Abused Christian Terms 

Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

No Gay Marriage Button

The entire case for embracing the homosexual lifestyle is built on lies, falsehoods and deception. I have now written three books on this topic, and in them I deal with these myths in great detail. In some 600 pages with around 1400 footnotes I carefully document, assess, and refute the various lies and myths put out by the militant homosexual lobby. I encourage you to get those volumes so that you have the full documentation on all this.

You will find all three here for example:

Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1495969436
ISBN-13: 978-1495969430

Dangerous Relations: The Threat of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1500516031
ISBN-13: 978-1500516031

WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage

ISBN-10: 098074184X
ISBN-13: 978-0980741841

Here I had planned to offer ten of these myths, but I stumbled upon another great article which covers similar territory and ten more myths, so I will also post the piece by Peter Sprigg as well following my ten myths. Even though there might be a bit of overlap here, these 20 points cover at least in outline form the main porkies put out by the activists.
SSM


Here then are my top ten myths:

Homosexuals are born that way. There is no reliable research indicating a genetic basis of homosexuality. At best, there continues to be a debate about what is more influential: nature or nurture. The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof or abusive parent, and so on. And many homosexuals have now fully left the lifestyle, giving lie to the claim that one cannot change.

10% of the population is homosexual. No reputable study has ever come up with these figures. Instead, the numbers always range from 1 to 3 percent. It was sexual deviant Alfred Kinsey and the homosexual activists who invented the 10 percent figure. It is not based on science but ideology and activism.

Homosexuals just want to be free to privately do their thing. Yes many do. And if this were fully true, there would be no need to write this article. But many activists are seeking to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They insist on publicly flaunting, promoting and celebrating their lifestyle, and they are using the heavy hand of the law to quash all opposition.

Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else. As I carefully document in great detail in my books, everyone is impacted by homosexual marriage. The negative results are getting worse by the day. All over the West those who dare to resist the homosexual agenda or simply affirm heterosexual marriage are losing their jobs, being fined, and even thrown into prison.

There is no slippery slope. We are already seeing the slippery slope in action. Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, all sorts of other groups are demanding that their forms of sexuality be recognised, applauded and legalised. This we have active and vocal groups calling for the complete recognition of things like polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia, objectamory, and so on. And most of these groups are using the identical arguments used by the homosexual lobby.

Marriage is only about love. Marriage is not just about love between people. Love can exist outside of a marriage: a brother can love a sister, a son can love a father, a girl can love a cat. But marriage is a special kind of love: a life-long commitment, publicly acknowledged, with the possibility of procreation. Heterosexual married love is special, as it entails the possibility of rearing and raising the next generation.

Heterosexual marriage is a recent invention. The secular left seeks to tell you that the traditional married family is a creation of America in the 1950s. This is pure nonsense. All cultures throughout human history have had a recognisable form of male-female marriage. And the institution of marriage existed even before the state acknowledged or regulated it.

Children raised in homosexual households do just fine. This is not the finding of the social sciences. Countless studies have now shown that children raised outside of the male-female marriage unit suffer greatly in every area, from poor educational performance, likelihood to move into drugs and crime, higher suicide rates, and so on. Family structure does matter, and those children raised in homosexual households are now coming out and telling their very sad stories.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Jesus spoke often about the original purposes for human sexuality as found in the opening chapters of Genesis. He affirmed and repeated these norms, and lashed out at other forms. And arguing from silence is poor form anyway: he also said nothing about rape or arson. Does that mean he approved of those things?

Love is all that matters. The Bible has a much different understanding of love than many have today. Biblical love is certainly not about lust, nor is it about getting whatever you crave. Biblical love is about willing the highest good for the other person. And it involves keeping God’s commandments. Jesus and others made it clear that to love God is to keep his Word, not break it or ignore it.


And here is the list from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council in America:

by Peter Sprigg , CP Guest Contributor March 16, 2015 Original Source: christianpost.com "10 Myths About Redefining Marriage" (Peter Sprigg is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.)

10 MYTHS ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE

marriage-madness-marches-on

Advocates of redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as “myths.” The reality is often quite different.
 For example:

MYTH: A “one man and one woman” definition imposes a religious definition of marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of no religion.

MYTH: Children don’t actually need both a mother and a father.
REALITY: An overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.

MYTH: Marriage can’t be about procreation, because infertile couples are allowed to marry.
REALITY: Laws are based on the rule, not the exception. While not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do so naturally. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would have no effect on other marriages and families.
REALITY: “The law is a teacher,” and if we change the definition of marriage we will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For example:
-We would teach-wrongly-that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest.
-We would teach-wrongly-that children do not need a mother and a father.
-We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.

MYTH: Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is “discrimination.”
REALITY: Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has been permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or (through most of human history) a person of the same sex. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.

MYTH: Homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, be sexually faithful, or have relationships last a lifetime. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Scandinavia has led to a weakening of society’s commitment to marriage across the board.

MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the “protections” of marriage.
REALITY: Many of these “protections” are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies.

MYTH: Homosexuals are unable to care for their own children if they cannot “marry.”
REALITY: A biological parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. States, if they choose to, can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage. However, recent research shows that children of homosexual parents suffer significant disadvantages. It is not in children’s interest for society to actively affirm a family structure that may harm them.

MYTH: Laws “banning same-sex marriage” are the same as the old laws that banned interracial marriage.
REALITY: It is actually the supporters of homosexual “marriage” who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage. Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family setting.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would not affect anyone’s religious liberty or conscience rights.
REALITY: All taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to provide allowances for homosexual relationships, whether they want to or not. Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones, even in opposition to parental teaching. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public square.

  Source: christianpost.com “10 myths about redefining marriage”

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution includes a “right” to marry someone of the same sex, they – and the public – should be wary of falling for these myths.

[1595 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 13.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: billmuehlenberg.com "Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists"

Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

No Gay Marriage Button

Whenever you hear lefties talk about the need for open and honest debate, you can usually count on them to mean that only their point of view should be heard. It is all one-way traffic with these folks: they want to fill the airwaves and monopolise the media, and ban any dissenting viewpoints.

That is the left’s definition of free debate. And it happens all the time. The left is not interested in what the other side says or believes. What it wants is complete domination of the public arena, where differing views are squashed and censored.

This tells us all we need to know about the paucity of their arguments and the shallowness of their positions. If they are not able to allow genuine free exchange of ideas, then you know their ideology is bankrupt. But that is always how they operate: stifle dissent and shout down opposing opinions.

Consider just one brief example I came upon moments ago:

Stating an anti-transgender opinion is close to forbidden in today’s “news” pages and “news” rooms, especially after the Bruce Jenner fawning frenzy. Exhibit A? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham wrote a column truthfully titled “Caitlyn Jenner is still a mister.” JimRomenesko.com notes Jay Brown of the so-called Human Rights Campaign demanded in a letter that she be fired for “hate speech, plain and simple”.

Yep, fire anybody who dares to take a non-PC and non-sodomite line on things. Forget about freedom of speech. Forget about differences of opinion. ‘You will believe my way or it’s the highway.’ Pure leftism in action – intellectual Stalinism in other words.

And this certainly happens all the time in the abortion debate as well. Just yesterday another classic example of this took place.

Consider how a pro-life group was treated when the leftist jackboots got wind of what they were doing:

Grilld-Logo-Healthy-Burgers

A popular burger chain has apologised for allowing diners in Brisbane to donate to an anti-abortion group.
Each month Grill’d restaurants give $500 to three local charities, encouraging patrons to decide which group gets more of the money by placing a bottle top in a jar.
More than 100 organisations apply each month in Queensland.

This month, the Toowong restaurant chose the Cherish Life association as one of the three groups.
Criticism spilled onto social media, with many perplexed by the chain’s conservative approach.

twitter-bird

Hmm. Local @GrilldBurgers has an anti-abortion group as one of its local groups this month. Not what I would have expected from them at all,

one critic tweeted.


Simon Crowe managing director of Grill’d

Founder and managing director of Grill’d Simon Crowe apologised for Cherish Life being selected and said its ideals did not align with Grill’d.

This time we didn’t apply the right vigour or discipline in deciding who gets in,” he told 612 ABC Brisbane. “Unfortunately it’s a mistake that we made at our end.

Mr Crowe said although everyone had a right to an opinion on subjects such as abortion, Grill’d was pro-choice.

We are very much about pro-choice,” he said. “We’ve removed the jar in question.

Everyone has a right to have their opinion, but in this instance our opinion is about pro-choice.

Um, that last line is such a doozey, let me run it by you one more time:

Everyone has a right to have their opinion, but in this instance our opinion is about pro-choice.

So let me see if I have got this straight: this business is so pro-choice that it will not allow any other choices except their own. They think everyone has a right to their own opinion, but they must be silenced if it differs from Grill’d. Right, Got it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Gotta love that commitment to choice:

You embrace our view on this matter or you will be silenced.
Yep, sounds fair to me.

And this phrase in this context has got to be the greatest non-sequitur of all time:
We are for choice in the abortion debate. We just do not want the one most affected by it to have any choice.
 Pro-choice simply means dead babies. The baby has no choice whatsoever. The father who may want the child to live has no choice. The mother who may be forced into this has no choice. The grandparents have no choice. There is only one acceptable choice here: kill the babies.

The article did allow a brief word from the group concerned:

Cherish Life state president Teresa Martin said the organisation wanted to use the money to give pins to students to promote education about gestation.
“There is nothing to do with a pro-life, pro-choice issue on the jar,” Ms Martin said.
“We believe women deserve real information and real choice so they can make a choice and not just be shepherded down one path.
“I feel like this is an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion people.”

It sure was orchestrated by the pro-death crowd, and their leftist media mates. This is standard operating procedure from the secular left. Shut down and shout down any contrarian voices. That is their take on freedom of speech. For the left, free speech means, ‘I have a right to speak – you shut up.’

Now because this is a private business, I do not necessarily begrudge them the right to refuse certain causes. But the glaring hypocrisy on display here and the appalling double standards certainly does get my goat. When you have folks ranting on and on about choice, all the while denying others their choices, then you know you have the usual leftish hypocrisy in action.

But there would be thousands more such cases. This is just the normal way the left goes about its business. It is called the end of freedom, free speech and democracy. Just the way the left likes it.

Postscript

Teresa Martin adds this advice:

We encourage you all to send a letter of complaint expressing your dissatisfaction about the censorship of the situation to the OWNER of the chain as soon as possible:
Simon Crowe
Level 2, 4-10 Amsterdam Street
Richmond VIC 3121
or email him on: www.grilld.com.au/say-hi/

newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/06/10/pittsburgh-news-room-lobbyists-demand-columnist-firing-jenner-still#sthash.0Lv0d5GV.dpuf
www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-10/grilld-apologises-for-supporting-anti-abortion-group/6536332

[1013 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 12.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: billmuehlenberg.com “Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed”