Obama’s Easter Prayer Breakfast remarks… where do I even begin?!?!?! So many things wrong with them, so little time…
Let’s start with his first statement “On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian…” If there has ever been an American President who has made statements and taken actions that make people doubt his claims of being Christian more than Obama, I have absolutely no idea who it would be. Between calling America a nation founded on Islamic principles, writing in his book that “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” over Muslims, to not calling terrorism for what it is, to refusing to acknowledge the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Muslims on numerous occasions, to unbridled support for totalitarian Islamic regimes and bashing the only non-Muslim democratic country in the Middle East – Israel, his words and actions scream “I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!”
He then continued that as a Christian “I am supposed to love” which of course is liberal code for “I have to accept any and all behavior, because doing otherwise would be ‘unloving’ and ‘judgmental’ and Jesus would NEVER do that…” because Jesus would be absolute hunky dory over homosexuality, adultery and anything else someone does when they are in “love” because he was all about love, and not about any hateful rules or anything… He would NEVER call people out for being, I don’t know, hypocrites and sinners…ever!
Obama then said “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” Now he never said what “less than loving” meant, but I’m sure you and I both know he meant that Christians who do what we are supposed to do, call sin for what it is… are the “less than loving” ones! I know, it’s that pesky “sin” word. So judgmental and what-not. Jesus would never use THAT word, and it would be so unloving not to let everyone just do what they want. Pointing it out would just make people uncomfortable or offend them.
Jesus had no problem with calling sin out and he always talked about sin and sinners. Liberals love to pull the story of the woman adulterer for one quote only “let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone” because it is a handy stone to bash Christians into silence. However, what liberals think Christ was saying was far from the truth. If you take the entire story in context, without leaving out the parts that are troublesome, it says something completely different. Let’s look at John 8: 2-11:
Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”
The meat of this passage is that the scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into doing something they could discredit him with – breaking the Law of Moses. They really weren’t worried about the sin the woman had committed. It’s also been theorized that while the Scripture never says what Jesus is writing in the ground, it may just have been a list of sins of those accusing her. Again, a theory not supported by Scripture, but within His power, and also goes back to Matthew 7:4-5 where Jesus tells those who judge others not to do so hypocritically.
Jesus said he wouldn’t condemn her, meaning he would show her compassion and not agree to a death by stoning, but notice that he says “go, and do no sin again.” He calls her out on her sin, even calling it SIN, and tells her not to do it again. That’s what a loving person does.
Jesus also had a temper and could be very unloving to those who were hypocrites. Beyond taking out the money changers in the Temple with a whip, he regularly called the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes a “brood of vipers” and “hypocrites” who would be condemned to hell (see Matthew 3:7, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23 and Luke 3:7 for a few examples).
If Jesus came back today and went on the rant he did in Matthew 23, Obama would be the first to stand up and say “That can’t be Jesus, He isn’t being ‘loving’ enough!” Jesus was absolutely being loving and calling out sin, simple as that. But today’s liberal Christian is regularly appalled at anyone, especially Jesus, doing that. Jesus ALWAYS called sin for what it was, and told the sinner that while they were forgiven, they needed to “go and sin no more.” Loving someone means telling them to stop doing the wrong thing. Allowing them to continue on a path that leads away from God isn’t loving in any way that I know.
But let’s be candid, this wasn’t about being loving. This was Obama’s slap at Christians, his means to shut down the loving morality of Christianity. Why else would he, a man who is supposed to be so intelligent and learned, not know the basis of love in the Christian faith?