Defending a Liberal from a Bible-Wielding Bully

I’ll admit it right up front – I consider myself to be a moderate. There are some areas where conservatives get it right. There are other areas where liberals get it right. It’s foolish to think that either side gets it 100% right or wrong.

But one thing that really gets my blood boiling is when a person one side seeks to tarnish (or completely strip away) the salvation of an opponent on the other side. This was just the case this week as conservative blogger Matt WalshMatt Walsh wrote a piece partially titled: It’s Incredibly Obvious That Barack Obama Isn’t a Christian.

While Mr. Walsh and I probably agree on a great many things politically, ethically, and morally, I disagree with his admitted attack on President Obama’s Christianity. I have two fundamental problems with Mr. Walsh’s attack piece. First, the beginning part of the article is superfluous and unnecessary. Mr. Walsh let’s loose with a long list of grievances that show the President’s lack of Christian faith:

– he’s part of a radical heretical sect called Black Liberation Theology
– he attacked religious freedom in America
– he “aided and abetted” persecutors of Christians overseas
– he supports same-sex marriage
– he’s dishonest
– he exploits racial tensions
– he’s generally corrupt and unwaveringly narcissistic

Mr. Walsh invokes Jesus’s words in Matthew 7:16

You will know them by their fruit

It’s quite possible that nobody ever told Mr. Walsh that reading a Bible verse requires seeing the surrounding verses as well for context. In Matthew 7:15-16 Jesus actually says:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.

Do you see it there? Jesus is talking about judging and gauging prophets. He’s not talking about politicians. While there may be a general life principle about watching a person’s behavior to know who and what they are, we mustn’t tweak Jesus’s words to fit our agendas.

Then, admitting that his entire list is irrelevant, Mr. Walsh says:

He could theoretically be all those things and still be a Christian.

So there is no biblical support to back up the initial accusations. They do not stand as proof of a false Christian faith. The real issue, what Mr. Walsh is really getting to, is his intense loathing for President Obama based on Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion.

Leave all of that aside, then. The thing above all else that really reveals his true faith (or lack thereof) is his undying passion for, support of, and belief in abortion.

Mr. Walsh then unleashes a plethora of articles and facts illustrating Mr. Obama’s stance on abortion.


Here comes my second fundamental problem with Mr. Walsh’s article. He misuses the Bible again to support his point (c’mon, this blog is about the Bible, of course that’s going to be the issue here).

Mr. Walsh “quotes” the Bible and adds his own commentary:

If anyone causes harm to these little ones, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Did you catch that? Can we all take a moment to let that one sink in (no pun intended)? You would be better off dead than harming a child. It would be wiser to literally drown in the ocean than do anything that would bring harm, whether physical or spiritual, to a child. That’s God talking. Do we think He was joking? Exaggerating? Just blowing off steam? Does he need to calm down and be reasonable, as pro-lifers are constantly told when they make statements not nearly as strident and damning?

No. This was a direct statement. A command. A promise. When you bring harm to the innocent, you commit a sin so terrible that physical death would be preferable.

Mr. Walsh is creating his own meaning to Jesus’s words. No – it goes beyond that. Mr. Walsh is putting words in Jesus’s mouth. I looked at Mark 9 in 15 different Bible versions – including my Greek New Testament, the New International Version, the King James Version, The English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard, heck, even the Message! I didn’t see Mr. Walsh’s version anywhere.

Because it doesn’t exist.

After Jesus’s disciples have an issue with an outsider doing exorcisms in Jesus’s name, Jesus says, “Do not forbid him…. Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble….”

Jesus is NOT talking about hurting children. He’s talking about Christian behavior damaging the faith of other believers.

It is dishonest (perhaps unintentionally) to use this passage to promote a pro-life agenda, AND I SAY THIS AS A PRO-LIFE SUPPORTER. Jesus gave no direct statement, command, or promise about abortion or hurting children. Abortion existed thousands of years ago but there was still no direct command against it.

I personally believe that a high view of human life being created in the image of God should lead people away from abortion, but don’t put words in Jesus’s mouth.

So let’s get down to brass tacks. The Bible DOES talk about faith and salvation.

Peter preaches, “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

A jailer asks Paul, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul answers, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

We’re never called to hold to certain political positions in order to be saved. It’s about faith in Jesus. That means that, though we may not like it, there is a WIDE variety of people and political ideologies that still fall under the umbrella of Christianity.

We may not like a person’s position. We may feel that they are downright wrong. But we don’t have the ability to revoke someone’s salvation because they differ from us on issues. C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity
that we don’t have the ability to say a person is or isn’t a Christian. We are not the judge of hearts. All we can say is that a person’s behavior doesn’t seem to align with what we think Christian behavior ought to be (forgive the paraphrase, I can’t find the exact reference right now).

I am pro-life.

I will not destroy the salvation of someone who disagrees with me, even though I personally believe that abortion destroys the human created in God’s image. Even on the big issues, salvation is still about Jesus. That’s it. The closer we walk with Jesus the more our morals and values will align with his, but we’re all in different places in our spiritual growth and development.

In the end, I’ll let God determine whose faith is authentic and who is merely faking it.

That’s kind of his job anyways – not mine.

_ _ _ _ _

I welcome all discussion, just keep it civil and polite. If this post resonates with you in any way, please share it on Facebook, Twitter, or email!

12 Replies to “Defending a Liberal from a Bible-Wielding Bully”

  1. Chris, ” Abortion existed thousands of years ago but there was still no direct command against it.”. I believe the Bible does have someting to say about it…….”Thou shall not kill”. So then we’re back to the beginning of life issue and I think it is clear there also imho.


    1. Hi, Dale. The command in Exodus 20 not to murder is not a “direct” command against abortion. If we’re talking about Old Testament Law, the main emphasis is on the life of the mother, not the baby in the womb.

      I agree with you that there is biblical support for being against abortion – we just have to be careful not to make the Bible say what it never said.


      1. Chris,

        Now I’m not a bomb throwing anti abortionist nor do I claim to be a biblical scholar, but your ” If we’re talking about Old Testament Law, the main emphasis is on the life of the mother, not the baby in the womb.” confuses me. I’m not sure where that comes from biblically. Life of mother issues can be tricky, I think. If we’re talking viability or worth, then we are getting in much deeper than just abortion, we could be talking euthanasia and that opens up a whole other can of worms. Just sayin…….


        1. All I mean is that when the Bible talks about harming a pregnant woman who miscarries, the concern and retribution is for injury to the woman, not the baby.

          My personal opinion is that the biblical concept of the image of God (Imago Dei) in all humanity makes life precious and should make the idea of abortion abhorrent.


  2. As you likely know, the word for “stumble” in Matthew 18 is skandalizō. I realize this word can have a number of different meanings, and there is some disagreement on how to best translate it. But i’ve read lots of opinions on this word, most of which were conservative, that believe that he very well could be talking about literal harm towards children. That doesn’t seem like a big stretch to me, and definitely doesn’t seem like its putting words in Jesus’ mouth


    1. If you look at the dozen or so uses of skandalizo in Matthew alone you will see that context doesn’t allow for the word to be used to convey physical harm. What lexical aids are you using that translate the word in such a way? Can you show me some biblical uses where the word clearly does intend literal physical harm?

      The context of the passage in question – believes in me – indicates that literal physical harm is not in question…unless you’re contending that Jesus is okay with hurting children that DON’T believe in him.

      Of course I’m being facetious. My point is that the context is not about hurting children.


  3. What about other verses in the Bible that point toward character and faith? Like 1 John 2:4, Titus 1:16, and Matthew 6:24? I’m honestly just curious to know your thought. I respect our president despite disagreeing with a lot of his beliefs and I won’t get into whether I believe Obama is a believer or not, there is only ONE person who knows this answer. However, having said that according to the verses I listed and what I have seen of him I have to say that what the Word says and his actions don’t line up….. I definitely agree that no one can revoke someone’s Christianity and that the Lord is not incapable or unable to save anyone. I believe He is all-knowing, all-powerful and He can make anything happen. Thanks for sharing your post though!


    1. The Titus passage is specifically talking about church teachers, not about Christians in general. The 1 John passage seems appropriate for all believers. I guess it comes down to whether or not you feel the President is keeping God’s commandments. While some of the biblical commandments are easily brought into a 21st century context, many are not. So then the question becomes one of nuance and interpretation. What commandments do you think God has given that President Obama is not keeping?


So...whatcha think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: