No, Mike Huckabee, Jesus Didn’t Define Marriage.

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 9:26 am By Benjamin L. Corey

The other day Mike Huckabee was on MSNBC and made the claim that Jesus specifically outlined what marriage looks like. It’s a claim I’ve heard a million times– and perhaps you have as well. However, this claim is not exactly true and is a classic case of attempting to use ancient scriptures to answer modern questions, instead of digging into the context to discover the ancient question they were actually wrestling with at the time.

Such is the case with this claim that Jesus “defined marriage.” The argument is made from selectively quoting and potentially misapplying Jesus when he said in Matthew 19: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” (v.5)

This passage takes much greater shape when we set aside our current cultural debates and peer behind the curtains to see what was actually happening contextually when we see Jesus make this statement.

So, some things we and Mike Huckabee should know about the context:

First, marriage wasn’t defined as “one man one woman” in the Second Temple Period. Polygamy was certainly falling out of practice among commoners, but it still existed. The New Testament never addresses this, though Paul weighs in and states that men with more than one wife should not serve in church leadership. This wasn’t necessarily because of moral objections to the practice (Paul never specifically condemns it, so we can’t say for sure) but was because Paul was deeply concerned that married people wouldn’t have time for both ministry and family (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Having a large family and multiple wives in addition to church leadership responsibilities would certainly, in Paul’s view, be too much responsibility for one person to manage effectively.

Secondly, we need to understand the cultural debates of Jesus’s time– and the passage in question from Matthew 19 is a very specific answer to a very specific debate: divorce.

Jesus wasn’t the only show in town during this period, and he wasn’t the only one driving conversations. There were actually two competing rabbis who were deeply influential during this period, and they’re critical to understanding what is happening in Matthew 19. The two rabbis were Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hellel, and they sparked a number of debates over which they held competing views. One of the issues they strongly disagreed over was the issue of divorce and how to interpret and apply Deuteronomy 24:1, a verse that says a man can divorce his wife if she becomes “displeasing.” The word “displeasing” was the source of this debate: “What does that mean?” the two argued.

Rabbi Shammai held a rigid view of what “displeasing” meant, and argued that the word referred to a serious transgression, such as adultery. Rabbi Hillel on the other hand, argued that displeasing could mean almost anything and is perhaps most well known for the fact that he taught it was permissible to divorce your wife for being a bad cook. Essentially, Rabbi Hillel argued that a man could divorce his wife for “any and every reason” because “displeasing” could mean whatever you wanted it to mean.

Let’s see how that context completely changes how we view Matthew 19:

“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

Can you see what’s happening here? They are quoting what Hillel was teaching and asking Jesus if he agreed with him.

The question isn’t, “Jesus, what is the definition of marriage?”

The question isn’t, “Jesus, how should Rome define and regulate marriage?”

This is their question: “Jesus, what do you think about Hillel’s view that a man can divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

Jesus answers and disagrees with Hillel, essentially affirming what Shammai taught: “displeasing” could only mean adultery.

And so, in Matthew 19 we find Jesus weighing into the debate between Hillel and Shammai on divorce, and Jesus answers by reminding them that broken relationships and broken families were never part of the plan, and that this should be permitted in only the most egregious of circumstances.

Looking at the context, we see that Jesus didn’t define marriage– he defined when he thought it was permissible to get a divorce.

In closing, when considering the actual context of this passage and how it is used in our modern cultural debates, I am left with a few questions:

1. Since Jesus took such a hard line on divorce in this passage, shouldn’t we be primarily applying this verse to cases of divorce? With the prevalence of Christian divorce, shouldn’t this verse be a beam-in-the-eye moment where the primary application of the text gives us more than enough to occupy ourselves?

2. Do we even agree with Jesus on this? I know most Christians would say, “Yes, of course I agree with Jesus” but do we functionally agree? Does the average Evangelical church treat people who got divorced and remarried in cases other than adultery as practicing adulterers? Paul says the sexually immoral (includes adulterers) should be put out of the church completely, and that you shouldn’t even share a meal with them (1 Cor 5:11). Is anyone other than the strictest fundamentalist churches actually following that? Do we actually believe those who got divorced and remarried are going to hell? (1 Cor 6:9)

I have to be honest: I don’t know many people or Evangelical churches who functionally agree with Jesus (or Paul) on this. So, why are we okay making concessions on divorce but not other things?

3. Even if Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman, which he did not, where do we see Jesus telling the Roman government that government policies must be changed to reflect his own teachings? Where in the NT do we see the early church calling on Christians to rise up in rebellion until Roman policies reflected their beliefs? There’s an easy answer: We don’t. Ever.

4. Why are some Christians concerned with the legality of same sex marriage, but completely silent on the legality of getting divorced other than in cases of adultery? Isn’t that hypocrisy?

…

So no, Mike Huckabee– Jesus didn’t outline the definition of marriage. Nor did he try to take control of the government. He did however, take a hard line on divorce, and I’m pretty sure just applying that to ourselves as a Christian community will give us more than enough to worry about.

BREAKING: Attention On Kim Davis Vs. Refugee Crisis Reveals We’ve Got Issues

Last updated on: September 8, 2015 at 6:03 pm By Benjamin L. Corey

So, it’s breaking news that Kim Davis has been released from jail. For the past week, stories about Davis have comprised about 90% of my Facebook newsfeed. I even wrote one of them– it’s a story that has a time and place.

But with images of dead refugees washing up on the shores of Turkey, images of hundreds upon thousands who are now without a home and in desperate need of asylum and international aid, that time has officially expired.

The fact that, amidst the worse refugee crisis seen in a generation, so many American Christians are glued to the TV or internet to see what Mike Huckabee or Donald Trump will say about Davis, instead of being busy figuring out the Church’s role in addressing the refugee crisis, officially demonstrates everything that is wrong with Americanized Christianity.

I mean, seriously. We’re drunk on ourselves folks.

Across the ocean people are literally dying, and we’re hyper focused on some lady who chose to go to jail instead of doing her job?

That’s what we want to rally and protest?

That’s what we want presidential candidates focused on?

That’s what we want to keep blogging about?

I’m just going to go ahead say what needs to be said: we Americans officially need to get the hell over ourselves.

The world does not revolve around America’s so-called problems. We’re becoming people who ignore the life-threatening wounds of others so that we can talk about our embarrassing rash.

Case in point: I just checked the Facebook page of my good friend, Franklin Graham. 6 of his last 8 posts were either about Kim Davis, or anti-LGBT. How many were about the refugee crisis?

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

I’ll give you three guesses why, but you’ll only need one.

But before we start feeling too proud of ourselves, let’s be honest: in the competition between Davis and the Refugees, she’s winning the attention war on our side to.

Let me be clear: in 100 years the Church of Jesus Christ in America will not be remembered by how well it covered the Kim Davis saga. It will however, be remembered by how the Church chose to deal with what may be the biggest humanitarian crisis of our generation.

So really folks, let’s get our crap together in the name of Jesus.

One of the central missions of the church is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and welcome the stranger– so we need to get busy doing that. However, we have a more pressing concern in regards to the refugees that needs the church’s attention: this is one of those rare cases where the Church will be limited in what we can do without the assistance of the government.

While churches all across America could mobilize to begin welcoming Syrian refugees into our communities (and I am seeing some beautiful church mobilization on this issue!) there’s a major problem: without a change in heart on behalf of the American government, there will be almost no Syrian refugees to help.

That’s because while Germany has taken in over 800,000, the United States is only taking in about 1500.

Yeah, that should make you want to have an epic facepalm moment. Right now America is an embarrassment to the world.

I believe in many areas the church could and would rise to the occasion and actually be the hands and feet of Jesus for a change. First however, we need to pressure our government to allow refugees into the US, so that individual church communities can have the opportunity to put up or shut up for Jesus. There’s no other first step in doing our fair share– we must get on the phone with our elected leaders and demand a change in US policy. (And I say that as an Anabaptist who cringes at the thought– but this is one of those times and places where such an action would be appropriate.)

Until that moment however, we should be flooding charities working with the refugees overseas with money. We should be drawing attention to this crisis. We should be helping people understand what created this crisis and how we can avoid it in the future. We should be networking with churches in Europe to see how we can support them. We should be stepping up and using this as an opportunity to showcase to the world what the people of God look like when other image bearers are suffering.

God hears their cries– do we?

The Church in America should be consumed by figuring out our role in addressing the refugee crisis.

But here we are, talking about Kim freaking Davis.

Her moment of capturing the attention of the people of Jesus needs to expire. It’s time for the Church in America to get busy on the actual stuff that Jesus asked us to do.

(And here’s a place where you can get started: visit We Welcome Refugees and sign up to get connected with other Christians ready to live the mission of the church.)

A Sincere Question For My Calvinist Friends

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 9:29 am By Benjamin L. Corey

I spent my teenage years discovering God in a Reformed Baptist church, and I met many wonderful people there. During those years I also discovered a lot about God and solidified my decision to follow him, for which I’ll always be grateful. However, I also stumbled upon some stuff which was immediately problematic for me– most memorably, the doctrine of predestination.

I still remember that first sermon on predestination, the general idea that God himself predestines some people for heaven (called the “elect”), but not others. I’ve heard various Calvinists describe this differently. Calvin himself taught that God predestines some people for heaven and predestines other people for hell, but not everyone in my church explained it the way Calvin did. Some told me that God picks some and leaves options open for others, while some held true to Calvin and told me that God does in fact predestine some for hell. (Which, years later, I now believe is the only intellectually honest position to hold regarding predestination; if God picks some, he either directly or by default destines others to hell.) When I objected to such a notion I was told that we had no right to complain about the purpose God created us for (Romans 9:19-20), even if that was the purpose of being an object of his wrath for all of eternity (Romans 9:21-22).

I’ll be honest: not a single explanation of predestination ever sat right with me. When I expressed moral objections to God picking some people for heaven and some people for hell– before they were ever born– the go-to response I heard then (and a common one I hear now) is that God is God and I have no right to question how he runs things.

Regardless of which way one describes the concept of predestination, it all leads to some problematic questions and conclusions. In the end, no matter which way you cut it, God picks some people but doesn’t pick others. At worst (what John Calvin taught), he actually creates people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.

20 years later, and even after spending four years at a Reformed-heavy seminary, I still don’t buy into predestination as taught by Calvin because of the questions it raises about God’s character (which I believe to be everything that is good and beautiful).

There are plenty of Christians who are also Calvinists– sincere, kind, and loving people. Yet, I just don’t understand how my Calvinist friends can side-step the moral problems with predestination. And this is what brings me to my sincere question for my Calvinist friends:

What if it’s the person you love most in the world?

What if you get to heaven and find out that your beautiful daughter, who you loved more than life itself, isn’t coming to join you?

What if you discover the spouse who was your best friend for 60 years wasn’t picked?

Or the parents who lovingly poured out their lives for you, who you looked forward to seeing. What if they’re not there?

And what if you find out the reason they aren’t there is simply because they didn’t get elected?

What if that beautiful child you raised and would have jumped in front of a bus for, was actually predestined by God to burn in hell for all of eternity, simply to demonstrate his holiness?

How would you feel about God in that moment? What would run through your mind when you came to the realization that you spent your whole life loving someone who was beautiful, wonderful, and who brought years of joy and laughter to your earthly life, was simply created as an object of God’s wrath and is now being tortured in hell?

How would you feel with the realization that they never had a choice and that they were predestined for hell before they were even born?

Does that really sit in your spirit well?

Would that change your view of God?

Would you think God was altogether beautiful, wonderful, and loving?

Would realizing your loved one was simply created to showcase the holiness of his wrath make you love God more?

Would your heart truly be free to worship him and love God completely?

Would you be able to honestly and truly gather around the throne and sing, Our God is an Awesome God? What about predestining your child to hell is an awesome character trait?

How could you worship God if this were true? I mean, I understand it would be possible to worship out of fear– but how could you worship this God out of sincere love for what he did?

I know how I answer those questions. If God created my beautiful children and predestined them to hell before they were ever born, I cannot in good conscience worship him or love him. Such a God would be nothing short of a monster.

Thankfully, I don’t believe that is true and don’t believe I’ll ever be confronted with that reality.

But I recognize that my Calvinist friends do. So my sincere question to those of you who believe in predestination is: what if it’s the person you love most in all the world who God picked for hell? Presupposing your theology is correct, do you really think you could worship that God?

How To Be A Progressive Christian Without Being A Grump About It

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 9:37 am By Benjamin L. Corey

So you’re a Progressive Christian?

Great, we welcome you. Whether you’re a Mainline Progressive™, a Progressive Evangelical™, or in the category of I Don’t Know Where The Heck I Am Anymore™, we welcome you under our ginormous tent. (There’s free beer and wine in the back if you’re interested.)

You’ll find plenty of friends here who will walk with you and inspire you along your personal journey.

But I’ll warn you… you’re also going to meet a few Progressive Grumps™. (Every tent has em, right?) Well, to be perfectly honest, some days I’m one of them… but I’m trying to turn over a new leaf. (Insert voice of Samuel L. Jackson in my mind saying, “But I’m tryin’ Ringo. I’m tryin’ reaaal hard to be the shepherd.“)

Since most of us like to have a decent time in this tent (it’s totally cool if you just came here for the Beer and Hymns), you’re going to need to set up some safeguards to make sure you’re not constantly lingering over in the grumpy corner of the tent (fair warning- it’s really smoky over there). There will be appropriate occasions to briefly hang out in that corner, but my advice is to make sure you’re not constantly sitting over there. If you stay grumpy too long, you’ll just start to hate everything about life, and I honestly don’t want that to happen to you.

So, here are 10 things I think may help you to be a Progressive Christian™ without being a total grump about it:

10. Read/listen to voices who inspire you instead of only listening to voices who fuel negative feelings inside you.

We have a lot of critics in here (they told me if we were a gang, my name would be The Dissenter™ which sounds kinda cool, honestly) but filling yourself on an over-diet of negativity will make one a permanent resident of the grumpy corner. A balanced diet is key, even in this tent– so make sure you’re consuming things that encourage and inspire you instead of only filling your plate with negativity.

9. Realize this tent is made up of people on a journey, not people who have arrived.

It’s easy to come in, pull up a chair, and breathe a sigh of relief that you have finally arrived somewhere. Unfortunately, that belief can lead to as much rigidity as exists in your old tent- and rigidity over time has a tremendous influence on the Grumpy Meter™. Think about this as a journey where you’re still learning, growing, and where openness to change can be your friend.

8. Hold your progressive beliefs in a soft hand instead of an iron fist.

While we are people on a journey always open to growing and changing, you’re going to have some convictions on certain topics that will be foundational– we all do. However, I think you’ll experience a more enlightening journey if you hold onto those convictions in gentleness and humility instead of a harsh edge. Plus, this is a tent where we don’t necessarily all share the same foundationals, so a good dose of humility would be good for all of us.

7. Please don’t shoot people inside the tent.

Let’s be honest: shooting someone is bad manners, especially for a Jesus follower. Plus, when you shoot people inside the tent, your bullets often ricochet across the room and cause collateral damage (which makes innocent bystanders Super Grumpy™). I know this might sound overly-simplistic, but if you have an issue with someone else at this party, can you do us all a favor and try to dialogue about it? While not everything can be resolved, I think we can resolve a lot more infighting than we currently do.

6. Strive to be gracious when dealing with those outside the tent.

Many of us left our old tents in part because we didn’t like the unloving way they viewed outsiders. Yet, we quickly resort to that old pattern of living- playing the same game by the same rules, but for a different team. If we want people to see that our tent is more loving than many others (which I believe it is) the best way to show it is to work toward loving those in conservative tents a little better. Plus, it’s good for our own selves– it’s hard to be grumpy when you’re busy loving.

5. Don’t join the Progressive Twitter Police™.

One of the surprising things you’ll find in this tent is, like fundamentalism, there are some here who will police your thoughts, tones, opinions, etc., and will be quick to “correct” you. Most commonly, this will happen on Twitter. Funny thing is, I’ve never met a member of the Progressive Twitter Police™ who wasn’t grumpy all the time, so it’s a tree/fruit kinda thing. Want to stay happy and avoid chronic Progressive Grumpiness Syndrome™? Stay as far away from this police station as possible.

4. Please don’t feel pressured to conform to other people’s ideas of what it means to be a progressive.

Let’s say the Progressive Twitter Police™ come calling anyway (they probably will at some point). In this scenario, here’s what you need to remember: don’t be a slave to group-think. Don’t let people pressure or bully you into conforming to their idea of what a progressive is or is not, and don’t buy into the lie that you have to conform to someone else’s idea of who you should be. There is no more Grump Inducing™ activity than trying to be anything other than who God is calling you to be.

3. Be about building, not just tearing down.

I’m not gonna lie: a lot of folks brought gas cans and lighters to this party, and I think we’re currently over quota. While there is a time and a place to burn bridges, if you spend all your time tearing down without investing into building things up, you’ll soon find yourself in a desolate wasteland. And you know what that will make you? Grumpy, that’s what. We are in need of people who are willing to do the hard work of constructing something beautiful– because we’ve neglected the beauty of being a builder.

2. Leave room for God to do what God does best.

So, you’re excited about this new journey you’re on? Great! Just remember: it’s not your job to try to convince everyone in all those other tents to come join ours. God has a wonderful ability to work on people’s hearts and lead them to the change he desires– so leave room for God to do what God does best. Yes, freely share the excitement of your journey, but if you begin thinking you need to get everyone out of the other tents, you’ll find such a quest is marked by a big case of Progressive Evangelism Grumps™.

1. Remember: the person you’re talking to might be the old you.

I know they make you grumpy, but please remember: that person in the comment section might be the old you. Instead of verbally blasting them and pelting them with dehumanizing labels that only shut down conversation, try remembering that perhaps, just perhaps, you thought that same way once upon a time. Maybe they were force-fed it as kids and are just regurgitating. Maybe they’re seeking. Maybe something you’ve learned will help them see things differently. But, you’ll never get through to them if all they meet is a Progressive Grump™. So, show them some love and patience- as someone probably once showed you.

…

So you’re a Progressive Christian™? Awesome, so happy you’re here.

This tent can be a lot of fun, and the journey can be exciting. However, there are some things you could do, and somethings you could avoid doing, that will go a long way in making sure this is a journey of enlightenment, and not a journey into the Seventh Hell Of Progressive Grumpiness™.

“I Am A Human Trafficking Survivor, And This Is My Story”

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 9:40 am By Benjamin L. Corey

This post is part 2 of a series on human trafficking I am doing with trafficking survivor, Meg Munoz. In this post, I’ve asked her if she’d share her story with us. You can find part one, here.

…

BLC: From what I know of your story it seems you have experience / a keen understanding of multiple sides of the sex industry and human trafficking, having a story that stems from both ends of the spectrum. Can you tell us a bit about your story?

Meg: “I think it’s important to realize that while there may be similarities, everyone’s experience in the industry and their reasons for entering is unique and personal. In my case, I entered into the industry fresh out of high school, escorting independently while working and going to college. I was curious, adventurous, and generally hungry for soaking in new life experiences. The thought of doing that AND making money was a no-brainer for me at 18. Shortly after I started to escort, I met a guy who introduced me to meth. It was an incredibly abusive and violent relationship, and I quickly became dependent on both him and the drugs, so much so that I was unable to function on any level. My life started to crumble a bit, so I dropped out of school and the industry for a while. I essentially dropped out of life.

The next few years were a blur of psychological/emotional/physical abuse, a failed stint in rehab, getting kicked out, multiple abortions, my first encounter with God, white-knuckling forced sobriety, a broken engagement, an eventual relapse, going back to school, and finding myself in a situation where I now had to financially and emotionally move out into independence and support myself. It was primarily for financial reasons that I re-entered in the industry in my mid-20’s.

And, recognizing that I was able to draw from cultural capital and privilege, it went really well … Overall, I had a fairly decent clientele, made good enough money that enabled me to support myself, had time to pursue my educational goals, and freedom to engage in other meaningful activities for me at the time. I had bad days as we all do, but I generally liked the work I was doing. But this isn’t just about comfort or being able to afford community college. Sex work (SW) prevented me from being homeless. It allowed me to feed and clothe myself. It literally kept me off the street and grounded during a time when there was a great deal of chaos, abuse, and uncertainty in my life. I was marginalized, criminalized, and grappling heavily with the social stigma associated with my work. Even though I felt isolated, I’m well aware that SW changed my narrative, kept me grounded, and saved my life.

Most people don’t understand that SW can be so much more than just showing up and providing a sexual service. I was seeing clients who were longing to emotionally connect, feel safe, and find comfort in ways that they weren’t able to in the context of other relationships, for whatever reason. I saw men who’d lost their wives to cancer and just wanted to talk and feel someone’s skin against theirs again. I saw men who had severe disabilities and did not date, but longed for personal and sexual contact. I saw men who were recently divorced and just wanted to feel comfortable around women again. I saw Veterans who had lost limbs and were afraid of rejection, but longing for touch. I saw men who had experienced deep childhood trauma and the notion of deep, lasting connection scared them. I saw men who I’m glad I only saw once. I saw a few men that I thought might kill me. I saw couples who wanted to explore and play safely. I saw tourists, bankers, law enforcement, businessmen, professors, sports figures, salesmen, musicians, accountants, teachers, real estate agents, construction workers, ad execs, politicians, and pastors … And they all taught me more about humanity and acceptance than I would ever have been able to learn otherwise. Granted, I had a few really horrible calls, but for the most part, every night was something new and an invitation to see people as individuals with humanity. I deeply value my experiences and the lessons they brought.

But, outside of, and unrelated to my industry experiences, things weren’t going so well. I was simultaneously enmeshed in 2 different abusive relationships: One was my boyfriend, the other was my closest friend with whom there was a very possessive, co-dependent, controlling dynamic. When not being abused by one, I was being abused by the other. In addition to that, I was essentially living a double life, trying to hide both my work and an addiction to meth from everyone but my friend (who knew and used with me).

About 2 ½ years into my return to the industry, things started to change. As most of know and understand, abusive relationships very rarely stay the same. They progress, they get worse, and that’s exactly what happened to me. Both men began to haggle for control of me, putting me in the middle of a great deal of conflict and the target of increased emotional, psychological, and physical outbursts and violence. Eventually I ended things with my boyfriend (and served him with a restraining order), but things weren’t as cut and dried with my friend. I lived with and rented from his parents, and he’d moved back into the same home. Things consistently escalated and my privacy and agency began to slip away very quickly. He started blackmailing me, threatening to tell everyone I knew that I was a SW, and a drug user. Coming from a law enforcement family, having experienced so much rejection and judgement from so many already, worrying about being homeless again, and fearing legal repercussions, I gave in hoping that I would pacify him enough for it to stop. But it didn’t, and it got worse. Eventually he wasn’t simply capitalizing off of my sexual labor, he was forcing me into it and taking every dollar he could get out of me. For the next 2 years, I lived in absolute terror, enduring unpredictable but consistent abuse. And then, it went someplace that I never imagined it would.

After a really violent beating and sexual assault, I instinctively knew that I was probably going to die if I didn’t leave. And I saw God, who had been walking with and strengthening me for years, open a door that only he could. I reconnected with someone who had held such a significant place in my life and he opened his home to me, creating the safe place and push I needed to leave. The next day, I waited for everyone to leave for work, threw everything I couldn’t live without in my car, and left.

I went to that safe place and never left. I moved in with Tony, got pregnant a few months later, married a few months after that, gave birth to my first beautiful son a few months after that, then found myself pregnant again only a few more months later. I was trying to parent and build this new life, all the while bouncing in-between emotional overload and numbness, as trauma and memories of abuse followed me. The stigma regarding SW I’d internalized haunted me. The socially induced shame I’d adopted ate at me. The flashbacks continued, the PTSD and anxiety grew, and my desire to wish it away and fit into my Evangelical culture gnawed at my every waking moment. I threw myself into church life … bible studies, fellowship events, women’s meetings, playdates, teaching Sunday School, blah, blah, blah …All it did was remind me of just how different I felt, how outcast I still felt within my community, and how unsafe my emotional and spiritual environment was. It wasn’t easy, and I tried everything I could to bury every secret I had for 8 years.

Until one day, I just couldn’t do it anymore. I felt as if I was literally crawling within my own skin. For years, Tony had been asking me when I was going to get honest about my ‘past.’ I told him it was never going to happen so he should stop asking. But one day, after another round of begging God to help me figure out what was wrong and take it all away, I got an answer that I wasn’t expecting. Very clearly, I felt him say “I can’t heal what you won’t acknowledge.” And it changed everything for me. That very day, the shame lifted completely and I experienced a freedom that I’d never felt before. I started to realize I’d been wearing someone else’s shame. I started to share bits of story, began healing, seeking a fresher understanding of God and healthy community in new ways. I started to work through my trauma and better understand my own experiences. I started to embrace and appreciate my time and work in the industry. I began to feel a warm kinship and fondness for those in the industry return. I started to realize I’d been blaming an entire industry for the actions of an individual. It’s been the most beautiful, ongoing, transformative, life-giving, humbling journey, and left me with a profound sense of gratitude for every experience I’ve had. And then, of course, my journey to start Abeni (abeni.org) began. I don’t ever want to minimize what’s happened to me and gloss over the trauma and abuse I experienced, but I’ve come to have an incredible amount of gratitude for the experiences I’ve had.”

BLC: It sounds like you have been on a windy, intense journey. What have been the biggest factors in you becoming who you are now? What things provided the most healing?

“Ha ha, yes, it’s been interesting to say the least, but I can honestly say that I’ve fallen in love with my journey, past and present. If I’m being honest, my journey and my understanding of it is constantly evolving, changing, and deepening. I’m a big believer in balanced and holistic healing, so there are so many different things that have driven my commitment to that. Without choosing one over the other, I definitely see a combination of the following having the most impact on my healing :

* A really messy, imperfect, unconventional faith that’s not afraid of being questioned, discovered, doubted, explored, and occasionally abandoned at times. I had to release myself from perfectionism and certainty in regards to spiritual theology. I had to release myself of feeling required to fit into a very painful, limited, traumatic, and confining religious box. For me, that meant leaving the evangelical church and re-finding Jesus. I learned how to embrace the unknown and found great freedom in not having all the answers — not having to have it all figured out actually gave me greater space to receive and love myself and others in ways that I hadn’t been able to before. I went from “I have to…” , to “I get to…” and that was life-changing for me. I was empowered to own my spiritual walk, and was no longer leaving my faith and spiritual growth in someone or something else’s hands. My faith is now my own and not dictated by doctrinal or political affiliations.

* A community that sees and receives me, allows me to be all fucked up and vulnerable, and is more interested in me as a person than they are my theology, activism, or label. That is a humbling and beautiful gift. We don’t heal in a vacuum or isolation, so my husband, my kids, my spiritual home at EPIC Church, my friends, my sex work community, my house church, my Board, my Pastors (Kevin and Erin), my colleagues, and my online community have been– and continue to be– critical components of my everyday life, as well as my healing.

* An ever-growing understanding of how my own life, experiences, and relationships have shaped and influenced EVERYTHING. I’m really committed to embracing and walking through my trauma, interpersonal conflicts, self-loathing, body image issues, addiction roots and behavioral patterns, co-dependency, deeply rooted fears, triggers, emotional wounding, psychological blocks, and relationship issues (everyone has baggage!). I don’t do many ‘should’s’, but there should be a National Therapist Day– and everyone should have access to mental health care and services.

* An understanding of how social justice issues have played out in my life, my community’s life, and the world at large. I didn’t always recognize or see the kinds of privilege I had, but when I moved into a more stigmatized, marginalized, and criminalized place in society, I began to understand and experience life through a new lens. Now I have the incredible honor and responsibility of leveraging the privilege and asking more challenging questions of myself and the world. I work very hard to view the people and issues I care about through an intersectional and anti-oppression framework. It’s been eye-opening and humbling, but necessary and powerful as I become more personally, professionally, and educationally aware of how things impact the communities I care about and am a part of.

* A commitment to my physical health and well-being has become a priority for me. As someone who endured decades of trauma before breaking free and into safety, I recognize it’s had on impact on my physical body and health. I like to maintain balance, but I also know when your health goes to hell, it’s hard to do anything else.”

…

This was part 2 of my interview with Meg (Part 1 is here). In the coming days we’ll wrap things up with a 3rd installment that will include some final questions, including some of the questions you’ve submitted.

You Don’t Have To Be Afraid To Be A Pro-Life Progressive

Last updated on: July 17, 2015 at 10:03 am By Benjamin L. Corey

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that this week your social newsfeeds has been full of stories regarding the now infamous Planned Parenthood video. While there have been plenty of articles dissecting and critiquing the video on both sides (each with valid points), in the end, it was still disturbing for me.

I am pro-life. I have always been pro-life. I will always be pro-life.

I am also a progressive who has been quite public in my critique of the pro-life movement, and feels little in common with it.

And yet, listening to people sit and talk over lunch about livers and limbs is something that is greatly troubling.

While I could list a variety of reasons why, the key for me is that of experience. As I’ve told before, I spent ten years as a photographer before graduating seminary, and during those years I was a volunteer for Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep. We specialized in infant bereavement photography for families who lost an unborn child or infant. I can’t count the number of times a hospital would call during the night. I’d grab my to-go bag, drive an hour to the hospital, and greet a grieving family. I’d then engage in the difficult task of taking portraits of their babies- sometimes as young as 18 weeks gestation.

Unborn babies who did not reach full development and birth are not an abstract concept to me. I’ve held them in my arms. I’ve positioned their tiny fingers and fully-formed toes. I’ve dressed them in their first (and last) baby gown. I’ve preserved their memories for families who I still hear from occasionally.

I know what it’s like to see a mom and dad cry over their lifeless child who just hours ago, was growing and developing in her mother’s womb.

This “issue” isn’t an “issue” at all for me, but is about real babies I have held.

As a result, I am pro-life. I will always be pro-life.

And yet, I am still a progressive.

Yesterday Ed Stetzer wrote a post at CT asking, “Where are the mainline and progressive evangelical voice speaking up…?” I appreciate the question. Some have, and I hope more do.

In fact, I’m writing this post to join in with that sentiment, and to tell you that you don’t have to be afraid to be a pro-life progressive.

It’s a difficult and explosive issue, I get it. In fact, I dread it when it comes up because I know the pro-lifers will think I’m less than pro-life (because I reject their focus of political messianism) and simultaneously find myself afraid of being shouted down by some of the same progressives who were giving me high-fives yesterday. Yet, that fear must not stop us from speaking out on issues when appropriate. We don’t allow the fear of rejection to stop us from speaking up for other marginalized groups, and we must not let that fear keep us from speaking up from our unborn brothers and sisters either.

My hope is that if you are a pro-life progressive you’ll find the courage to come forward. My hunch is there’s no shortage of us and that if more speak out on this issue, we’ll all be less intimidated and perhaps normalize the idea that these terms need not be mutually exclusive. In light of that, I’ve put together a few “key’s to being a pro-life progressive” to help encourage you to openly speak up for the unborn:

1. Realize that no one can kick you out of the tribe for being pro-life.

Yes, you will catch hell for it online (it’s about to happen to me in 3..2…). No, no one has the right to tell you that you’re “not a progressive anymore,” just as the evangelicals can’t tell me I’m no longer an evangelical because I believe in LGBTQ inclusion. No one has the power to tell you how to apply either label. In fact, if a ton of us all at once were to come out publicly and say “I am a pro-life progressive” we might actually be shocked to find that we’re not as alone as we thought we were.

2. Don’t be obnoxious about it.

And here’s where the pro-life movement I grew up with went wrong– they often hold their belief in a highly obnoxious, rigid, and unsympathetic way. Don’t do that! Instead of shouting people down with signs and comments you got off a bumper sticker somewhere, articulate your pro-life view with humility and dignity: “While the reasons abortions occur are varied and ethically complex, I believe that what grows in the womb is human life, and as a Jesus person I want to be a voice who lovingly and directly speaks to the worth and value of that life. I don’t have the answers for every potential hypothetical circumstance, but I want to be someone who works toward cultivating a culture of life.”

3. Don’t make legislative/political battles your priority.

This one is where the pro-life movement went off the tracks and into the ditch. Instead of pro-life being a term that means, “I believe in the sanctity of all life” it became a term that means, “I support the political goal of making abortion illegal.” It became a political term that identified where a person stood on one, single, legislative change, and stood for little else. And this is why it’s such a loaded term that can set people off- when you use it, many hear “I am pro-life. That means I want to take away your rights.” They hear a political stance that requires nothing of the one holding it, instead of an ethical stance that is backed up by lives of self-sacrifice and service.

The pro-life movement has been an embarrassment. They’ve spent years and untold amounts of money pursuing political candidates, in search of a political messiah who would outlaw abortion, instead of using those financial and human resources to actually do something to reduce abortions. What would the country look like if, instead of investing those resources in the political realm, it had gone to study and address ways we can actually work towards ending abortion? What if it had been spent on education, anti-poverty initiatives, healthcare, community development? The majority of pro-life eggs were in the basket of controlling SCOTUS, and it was a failure.

Remember: abortions happen for a reason. Being truly pro-life doesn’t have to reflect a political stance of legal abolition (it can, but shouldn’t be limited to this as it has previously), but can reflect a position of being determined to actually reduce and end abortions by addressing why they’re happening. There’s a huge difference in those two positions– the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t end slavery in America, I’m constantly told gun laws won’t end mass shootings, and simply abolishing abortions won’t actually end them, either. The pro-life movement has wasted a generation seeking a solution that isn’t a comprehensive solution, and we’ve gotta fix that– we need to be people dedicated to the messy work on the ground that will actually reduce or eliminate the practice.

4. Don’t be a hypocrite

Finally, don’t be a hypocrite about it. One of the biggest ironies of the previous generation’s pro-life movement is that it’s not actually pro-life, it’s just pro-birth. Once you’re born, you’re pretty much on your own.

Pro-life needs to be redefined to mean what it says. Pro-life. All life. Unborn life. Post-born life. Immigrant life. Iraqi life. Afghani life. Convicted murder life. Life of the innocent, life of the guilty. If God made it, we say it’s valuable– and we don’t let culture diminish that value regardless of whether or not that life is obscured by a maternity dress, death row bars, or by a pixelated drone camera.

If pro-life doesn’t stand for life for everyone, it’s not really pro-life at all.

…

Coming forward as a pro-life progressive might not be the popular thing to do. However, following Jesus isn’t a ticket to popularity but an invitation to embrace outsiderness. Those who wish to change culture must first be willing to stand in opposition to it. We’ve done it on evangelical exclusion of LGBTQ, we’ve stood against wars, racism, police brutality, and all sorts of other issues.

It’s time more of us have the courage to come forward and say “I am a pro-life progressive” and to redefine the term, not as simply a political term speaking of political goals, but as one that speaks to the fact that we radically value ALL life– including the life of the unborn.

The Execution of Michael Servetus & My Primary Deal-Breaker with Calvinism

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 10:02 am By Benjamin L. Corey

When I’ve written about Calvinism I’ve not infrequently heard “that’s just a caricature of Calvinism,” or that I don’t understand what Calvinism actually teaches (neither of which are true). While it’s true some of my critiques may not apply to some modern American Calvinists (who in all honesty, probably shouldn’t call themselves Calvinists), when I talk about Calvinism I’m talking about the theology of John Calvin himself.

I think the irony that often occurs isn’t that I don’t understand Calvinism, but that many modern Calvinists have never actually read what John Calvin taught. Calvinist writer and pastor Tim Callies completely agrees:

“Many, and no doubt most Calvinists have never read a word of John Calvin. Instead they reluctantly call themselves Calvinists because they feel John Calvin was gifted by God to understand and interpret the Scriptures and that he restored to the church doctrine that had been lost for hundreds of years.”

Perhaps one of the chief issues in modern Calvinism is that many don’t understand what their founder taught, or how he lived. I honestly don’t understand how one could be a Calvinist without first reading Calvin himself; I certainly wouldn’t want to be a Christian without reading what Christ said, or part of any other movement following the teachings of a person without actually reading the teachings of that person.

When reading Calvin there’s no shortage of problematic stuff one will find, as Zack Hunt articulately wrote about recently. From teaching that God not only picks who will go to heaven but also picks who will go to hell (before they’re even born!) and that God is the agent who ordains every act of evil in the world, there’s plenty of things to find in Calvin (aka, actual Calvinism) to be reprehensible. I concur with Hunt when he writes that a God who creates people for the purpose of torturing them (Institutes, 3.21.5), and who ordains all evil acts (1.17.5) is certainly a monster.

However, Calvin’s theology isn’t the primary deal-breaker for me. My primary point of departure from Calvinism is looking at how Calvin lived, and being able to see that he didn’t grasp (or was just completely unwilling to obey) one of the most basic things Jesus taught: enemy love. And this brings us to the execution of Michael Servetus– my primary “do not pass go” moment with Calvin.

Michael Servetus (1511-1553) was a theological enemy of Calvin and the two had mutual disdain for the other (Servetus thought Calvin was obnoxious and in return, Calvin felt Servetus was pompous). Servetus rejected orthodox Christianity (issues such as the trinity), holding what would correctly be called heretical views. In those days heretics were executed, and at one point Servetus was arrested- but released for lack of evidence. Soon after, he was re-arrested by the Catholic church and convicted of a capital offense– thanks to John Calvin, who sent some of Servetus heretical writings to the authorities. However, Servetus escaped from prison and was free to write again.

Calvin had previously vowed that if it were at all possible, he’d have Servetus killed, but his escape from prison thwarted those hopes. It wouldn’t be long however before Calvin could fulfill the vow he made against Servetus in 1546:

“Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.” [1]

As much as I dislike Calvin, Servetus was either an idiot or had a death wish, because instead of fleeing to safety he showed up at church one night in Geneva to hear Calvin preach (he’s certainly guilty of antagonizing Calvin). Calvin of course, didn’t miss the opportunity and had his friend Nicholas de la Fontaine arrest Servetus on 40 capital charges of heresy. During the trial, Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict would come back as death[2], and it did. Servetus was ultimately burned at the stake– atop a pyre of his own books and green wood to draw out his death– which reportedly took 30 minutes.

And thus, John Calvin was responsible for having his enemy killed.

Now, both sides tend to overplay their hand on the death of Servetus. Those who stand against Calvin will often call it murder, and those strongly in the Calvin camp will try to explain it away as just the “culture of the time.” (Aren’t we supposed to stand against evil in culture?) Certainly this was not murder in the sense that Calvin walked up and personally killed Servetus– but he did collaborate with the local government to have him killed on two occasions. Also, it is true that Calvin tried to get Servetus to repent of his theology and when that didn’t work, he sought to have him beheaded instead of burned alive. However, I find the Calvinist tendency to play the “he tried to have him beheaded as an act of mercy” card a bit disingenuous, as if beheading an enemy is somehow morally superior to burning one.

In addition, Calvin wasn’t simply an innocent bystander in a violent culture– he was actually one of the folks promoting it. Calvin once wrote that those who objected to killing heretics were just as guilty as the heretics themselves:

“Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are…” [3]

So, not only does he argue killing theological enemies to be good, but Calvin argued that one was not even morally free to oppose it. Furthermore, Calvin argued that the blood of no one– not even a person’s own family should be spared:

“… we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.” [4]

Got that? We must not spare our own families of bloodshed– in fact, we must “forget all humanity” when doing combat for God’s glory.

(And don’t even get me going on the fact that Calvin was somewhat famous for his abusive speech toward others— aka, the sin of reviling as condemned by Paul.)

Calvinism is, by definition, the teachings of John Calvin– a man whose actions show me either (a) he didn’t understand Jesus or (b) he didn’t want to obey Jesus. Why in the world would I want to build the totality of my Christian theology on a foundation erected by such a person? If Calvin didn’t understand something so basic as torturing and killing people is something a Jesus follower probably shouldn’t do, I have zero confidence that he ever understood the more complex theological issues.

And this is my primary deal breaker: before any discussion on sovereignty, evil, or predestination, I am unable to move past the fact that Calvinism is a theological system designed by someone who had no moral or theological objections to brutally killing those who disagreed with him.

…

[1] Henry, Paul. The Life and Times of John Calvin, Vol II. Whittaker & Co, London. Pg. 181

[2] Calvin to William Farel, August 20, 1553, Bonnet, Jules (1820–1892) Letters of John Calvin, Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pp. 158–159. ISBN 0-85151-323-9.

[3] Marshall, John (2006). John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 325. ISBN 0-521-65114-X.

[4] ibid.

5 Steps Toward Making Friends Out Of Enemies

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 10:03 am By Benjamin L. Corey

2000 years ago a group of folks in the first century had the opportunity to sit at the base of a hill and hear Jesus’s most famous sermon– one that’s become known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” In this particular sermon, Jesus offers many critiques on the old way of doing things and issues his followers a new standard that must be met in order to be rightfully called the children of God: the love of enemies.

Over the course of time I’ve obviously written a lot on this topic, particularly in regards to Christian nonviolence. However, enemy love goes beyond the simple unwillingness to harm our enemies; the call to love those who despise us is an imperative which requires loving action on our part. Enemy love is not easy, but for those who claim to follow Jesus this is the ultimate hallmark that we belong to him.

This morning I am back in the office after a weekend in Chicago at the Justice Conference. While there were a host of topics covered, and many fantastic speakers, what I am walking away with more than anything is a lesson on enemy love. This was a result of two interactions– one the night before the conference, and one unexpected interaction the evening the conference ended.

Many of you have seen the “Irish Atheist” at times in the comment section here, and know our story. He showed up on the blog two years ago and declared we were enemies, yet the evening before the Justice Conference began, we finally met in person for beers– because today we’re good friends.

Similarly, the evening the Justice Conference ended, I went to an after party at the hotel across the street. A few minutes after arriving I realized one of my current enemies was in the room– someone who has publicly and consistently made strong (and I feel unfair) criticisms of both myself and many of my friends. When I saw them my first instinct was to pretend our eyes didn’t meet, but then remembered a moment earlier in the day when someone came up to me and said, “Hey– aren’t you that guy from the internet who is always talking about peace?”

Ugh. The choice between discomfort and hypocrisy presented itself to me. While I don’t always get the choice between those options right, that night I did– so I walked over, said hello, and extended the opportunity to have some non-hostile dialogue between each other. Though we both had early morning flights to catch, we stood in the hallway continuing our sometimes tense but fruitful conversation until late in the evening. We certainly didn’t resolve all of our differences, but we both agreed that direct dialogue with each other was probably good, and that we would continue having some off-the-record discussions. My hope is enough dialogue will occur that we’ll be able to mutually see we’re both sincere Jesus lovers, and simply disagree on some of our theology and political opinions.

These two interactions– one with a former enemy and one with a current enemy– got me thinking about some practical steps towards living out Jesus’s command to actively love our enemies beyond the discussion of nonviolence. So, here are 5 practical things you can do to work towards not just passively loving your enemies, but to actively seek peace with them:

1. Be the first person to refuse to shoot back.

It is impossible to dialogue with an enemy– let alone actively love them– while there are still bullets zipping through the air. In many cases both sides are waiting for the other side to stop shooting, and as Jesus followers, we ought be the first people to refuse to shoot back or lob another heap of flames onto their side of the fence. This refusal to shoot back is exactly what Jesus is describing when he says, “do not ἀντιστῆναι” in Matthew 5:38, a term that is often hard to translate into English.

2. Be the first person to apologize.

Our insistence on being right instead of being loving is something that complicates all of our relationships at times, most especially with enemies. One of the best ways I have found to disarm an enemy is to surprise them by being the first one to approach with sincere humility in asking forgiveness for your part in the conflict. Even if you don’t yet believe you’ve done anything wrong, the simple humility of saying “I’m sorry if any of my actions have harmed you or contributed to this situation” can go a long way in opening dialogue.

3. Be the first person to shut up and listen.

I’m convinced that half of the reasons why people become enemies are misunderstandings of events, misinterpretation of each other’s motives, or in the case of ideological enemies, a limited or misunderstanding of what they actually believe. Just as enemy love requires one person to refuse to shoot back (perhaps getting shot a few more times in the process) it also requires that one person be the first to shut up and humbly listen to the other.

4. Be the first person to forgive.

In order to move past the state of enemies, there must be forgiveness for all shots fired on all sides– and like the other things I’ve listed, someone has to go first. Forgiveness, (in a biblical sense it means to “send away”), is simply the moment where we release our anger, bitterness, and desire to retaliate. We release these feelings primarily to free ourselves from the burdens they bring, but we also forgive to open the door to the possibility of being more than just enemies.

5. Be the first person to refuse to be enemies anymore.

Living at peace with an enemy (and perhaps even converting them to a friend) isn’t always possible. This is why Paul states in Romans, “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). Ultimate peace takes two former enemies working in tandem, but there are some aspects of the pursuit of peace that do depend on our own selves. At a minimum, we can reject the invitation to participate in mutual combat with enemies (the seed of shalom)– at most, we can become open to making friends out of them (the fulfillment of shalom).

…

When Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies he was going far beyond a passive unwillingness to kill them– he was issuing a command to actively do good towards them, and to pursue peace. It’s not easy, it is certainly uncomfortable, but comfort and ease are both things we let go of in order to follow the one who went to the cross.

But to do this however, someone needs to be the first.

Be the first in your situation. The first to stop shooting, the first to apologize, the first to listen, the first to forgive, and the first to refuse to live as enemies any longer.

Do it long enough, and you might actually make a few new friends out of the people you least expected.

Blood Moon Abomination: Why Christians Shouldn’t Buy What Hagee is Selling

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 10:10 am By Benjamin L. Corey

Mega-church pastor and New York Times best selling author John Hagee has been busy selling something that I’d invite all Christians to avoid like it’s going out of style. Since October of 2013, Hagee has been warning the world about “something big” that’s about to happen to the secular nation state of Israel that will impact the whole world, and potentially bring about the end of the world by October 2015. Not only has he been preaching about it and discussing it on talk shows, he’s also now able to boast that his book, Four Blood Moons, has spent time on the New York Times best-seller list, which means that tons of Christians are soaking this stuff up.

For those who might not be aware, here’s the basic premise of what Hagee is arguing: the occurrence of four lunar eclipses called “blood moons” between 2014-2015, that also happen to coincide with Jewish holidays, is a sign from God that the end of the world is coming. Or, if not the end, at least that “something big” is about to happen in Israel that will alter the course of history. Real quickly, let’s break down where he’s getting this from:

There are a few biblical references to the moon turning red, which is the basic premise of all of this. Perhaps the chief reference cited comes from the highly symbolic, apocalyptic work of the Revelation of St. John where he writes:

“When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood.” (Rev 6:12, which seems to be a reference to Joel 2:30-21. There is also a similar statement in Acts 2:20.)

As a futurist, Hagee’s contention is that the signs mentioned in these passages refer to the future (not to the audience they were written to), and that the “day of the Lord” and phrases like “end of the age” refer to the future end of the world. In addition, Hagee inserts another interesting theology to further add a twist to all of it: he argues that the secular nation state of Israel is a nation that is set apart and has a special purpose for God, aka, they are God’s “chosen” people. When you combine these two things together, you arrive at the whole Blood Moon nonsense: looking to the sky to tell the future of Israel (basically, fortune telling for a nation state). The cycle of 4 blood moons Hagee writes about will complete by October of this year (2015), which means that this “earth shaking event” he has predicted for Israel must take place before that time. (Well, one would think.)

While Hagee’s theory is getting him a lot of attention in the media, and book sales have likely padded his wallet nicely, this entire Blood Moon nonsense is something I argue all Christians should completely abstain from. Here’s why I think we should all avoid it:

For starters, the Blood Moon theory has serious theological shortcomings. Perhaps the most significant is the fact that (as futurist do) it views books such as Revelation as being something that was written to us way in the future, and completely dismisses the reality it was written to 7 first century churches. Whatever Revelation means, the chief meaning is what it meant to the first century churches it was addressed to– it’s not some Nostradamus look into the future but a letter of encouragement (the genre of literature is a letter of encouragement) to those specific 7 churches. In fact, the book of Revelation says that all of the events were to pass “near” “quickly” and “shortly”, which means that any predictions were immediate predictions. They are not for 2,000 years later– because that’s neither near, quick, nor short.

Second, it overlooks the fulfillment of these things that took place in AD70. The internal evidence for both Acts and Revelation is an early dating with completion prior to AD70, when Jerusalem (particularly the temple) was destroyed by Rome, and was an “end of the world” event for Israel. (I’ve written on this topic at length previously, here and here). In short, all of the “end times” stuff we see in scripture (yes, even the tribulation) was pointing to a coming event in the lives of those the letters were written to- the “end of the age,” which was the destruction of their temple. (We see Jesus state this plainly in the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24.)

Third, as I alluded to above, when Jesus talked about the “signs of the times” in Matthew 24, it was a direct reference to the coming destruction of the temple. At the beginning of the Olivet Discourse he makes the claim that the temple will be destroyed and “not one stone will be left unturned.” His disciples then ask, “what will be the signs this is about to take place?” So, all those wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes in diverse places that will be signs of the end? Jesus directly states they are signs of the coming destruction of the temple– they are not signs for us.

Additionally, Hagee’s theology is also based upon the foundational argument that the secular nation state of Israel today is the same thing as biblical Israel, something that is dangerously false (more on Israel, here). In short, the NT teaches that God’s people are not those who are the genetic descendants of Abraham, because there is no longer a distinction between Jew or Greek. Instead, Paul taught that those who are in Christ, are Abraham’s seed– (anyone who wants in, can be in- but it has NOTHING to do with your race). Hagee’s entire philosophy is predicated on this being wrong, and that God has set apart one race of people for a special purpose- the modern nation state of Israel.

Finally, and here’s the biggest reason why Christians might want to abstain from all of the Blood Moon nonsense: it’s the sin of divination.

What is divination? It is simply trying to predict the future through supernatural means. Astrology goes hand in hand: trying to tell the future based on the behavior of celestial bodies.

What does the Bible say about it? Well, let’s just say- God doesn’t seem to be a fan. In the Old Testament is is listed as an abomination (Deut 18) and it is mentioned repeatedly throughout the OT- warning people not to listen to it, and not to participate in it. Further, in the NT (Acts 16), the disciples encounter a girl who was said to have the “spirit” of divination in her, and that her ability to tell the future was from an evil spirit. In short: both Old and New Testaments seem to view what John Hagee is doing as very, very evil.

So, here’s the reader’s digest of the Blood Moon nonsense: Hagee’s theory is based on absolutely bad theology, and the entire practice of trying to tell the future by looking to celestial bodies is forbidden. That means the best case scenario for Hagee is that he’s a false prophet, and the worst is that he’s possessed by an evil spirit. The rest of us? My advice is to not pay it any attention, and certainly don’t spend any money on the book.

Oh- and here’s Hagee getting debunked on his own TV show:

While I obviously don’t believe in fortune telling, here’s my prediction: nothing will happen, but Hagee will pull a Harold Camping and will try to explain away the fact that he prophesied wrongly.

I say we dump all of this end times nonsense, and just get busy loving the world like Jesus.

If Christian Bakers Actually Applied That Logic Consistently

Last updated on: February 17, 2019 at 10:10 am By Benjamin L. Corey

On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple, marking what was, to many, an unexpected loss in the quest for equal rights.

Christians on the conservative end of the spectrum had long been rooting for victory– they see selling a wedding cake to an LGBTQ couple as being a personal and moral endorsement of the relationship of the couple purchasing it. As such, they feel that it is “forced speech” and they are being forced to endorse something they believe the Bible condemns.

I disagree that selling a wedding cake is an endorsement of the relationship of those who purchase it. However, if these bakers *really* believe this principle is true, and assuming they hold to a more conservative interpretation of the Bible, the reality is that they should be denying wedding cakes to a whole *lot* more than just LGBTQ couples. If Christian bakers applied this same ethical logic consistently, here’s 10 couples they should be refusing to sell wedding cakes to:

10. Career minded brides-to-be.

Let’s make sure we start asking brides what they intend to do after the wedding. The bible is clear- women should be “keepers of the home.” If the bride is career minded or dislikes housework, just tell her “no cake for you!” because you wouldn’t want to endorse a lifestyle that goes against God’s created order.

9. When they’re gluttons or over-eating will take place at the wedding.

Over-eating is a very serious sin, my dear brothers and sisters. Since it is by definition greed, and the Bible calls greed idol worship, we need to make sure that we are not endorsing idol worship. If you have any second thought about this couple over-eating (worshiping idols) you need to refrain from participating in their sin- just say, “no cake for you!”

8. Weddings where there will be drunkenness.

As the brave Christian patriots have argued in the gay wedding cake situations, you need to remember that selling a person a cake is a direct endorsement of their wedding. You’ll want to make sure no one invited to the wedding will be getting drunk (over .08 BAC in most states), because drunk people go to hell, and you don’t want to endorse a behavior that automatically gets people sent to hell.

7. Individuals getting remarried who do not have biblical justification for a prior divorce.

This one is easy but serious- one can only get divorced for two reasons: (a) the other spouse committed adultery, or (b) one was married to an unbeliever who abandoned the believing spouse. Those are the only biblical justifications for divorce, and anything other than those two scenarios means that remarriage will be adultery and fornication. You don’t want to endorse that do you?

6. Weddings where there will be unwholesome music and provocative dancing.

The Bible is clear that no unwholesome talk should come out of our mouths, but that’s pretty much what dance music is these days. To make matters worse, folks will often “bump and grind” or “twerk” on the dance floor to this unwholesome music. Remember, if you sell them a cake, you are directly endorsing all of the unwholesome music and sexually provocative behavior that will happen in that ballroom. Don’t take the chance folks– just say, “no cake for you!”

5. Young military couples.

I know it’s fun to use those military cake toppers, but that’s a n0-no folks. The Bible clearly states in Deuteronomy 24 that a man cannot serve in the military during his first year of marriage. If you sell a cake to that young military couple, you will be endorsing a lifestyle that is directly rebelling against God’s inerrant word. Don’t do it! No more military wedding cakes.

4. Weddings where one spouse-to-be works at a bank.

The Bible in Ezekiel makes it clear that charging interest on a loan is an abomination and that such a person should be put to death. If your customer works at a bank, they are an abomination to the Lord (for the Lord changes not) and you don’t want to endorse an abomination, do you? Refusing to endorse abomination is what this movement is about– so don’t forget those bankers!

3. Mixed faith weddings.

Remember folks, the Bible tells us we must not be “unequally yoked.” That means you need to find out the faith background of the couple you’re selling a cake to. If one is a Christian and one is not (or say, if one is a real Christian but the other is a fake Christian like an Episcopal), you need to boldly say “no cake for you!” — and should probably throw in a solid “repent ye!” as well.

2. Non-Christians.

The only thing worse than an unequally yoked couple is a couple where both of them are part of a false religion, or worse, atheism. Did you know that by selling a cake to a Hindu you’re actually endorsing the worship of Shiva and all the other Hindu gods? It’s true- you are. Same with selling a wedding cake to atheists- it’s basically as if you’re saying, “yeah, Richard Dawkins is right.” We need to be BOLD for the Lord, because if we sell cakes to atheists, Hindus, or God forbid, a Muslim, we are endorsing that entire belief system.

1. Weddings where the bride will wear an expensive wedding dress.

Finally, before you sell someone a cake, you need to look at the receipt for the wedding dress and make sure that it wasn’t expensive. Why? Well, Paul clearly states that women should not be adorning themselves with expensive apparel, and an expensive wedding dress would count. Just think about what you’re saying if you sell her a wedding cake: you’re saying that Jesus was a liar, because Jesus inspired Paul and Paul said that women shouldn’t have expensive clothes. You don’t want to call Jesus a liar do you? Far better it is to say, “no cake for you!”

…

Here’s the question I have for these bakers: If you really and truly believe that selling a couple a wedding cake is an endorsement of their relationship or “lifestyle”, why is it you only single out LGBTQ couples?

If you applied that same logic to other moral arguments that can be made from the Bible, wouldn’t you have to refuse service to… just about everyone?

If you applied your professed ethic consistently, I would at least respect you for having a belief and standing by it. However, the fact that you’re only singling out LGBTQ couples tells me one thing: This isn’t a moral principle you truly believe– it’s just selective bigotry and discrimination wrapped in a Bible verse.

*this post has been edited from an earlier version to better reflect current events.