This might be the best article I've read in at least the past 6 months, maybe this year. It was written by Matt Walsh on April 7, 2014. You can find it HERE. I have reprinted it below for ease of reading.
There is no
shortage of heresies these days.
If you want
to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of
Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through
all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice
Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.)
And, of all
the heretical choices, probably the most common — and possibly the most
damaging — is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.
The
propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any
Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language
of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force
or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and
I will not compromise,’ the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras.
They insist
that Jesus was a nice man, and that He never would have done anything to upset
people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and
acceptance, and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings.
They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this
Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue.
The
believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture, but they do know
that He was ‘friends with prostitutes,’ and once said something about how,
like, we shouldn’t get too ticked off about stuff, or whatever. In their minds,
he’s essentially a supernatural Cheech Marin.
Read the
comments under my previous
post about
gay rights militants, and you’ll see this heresy illustrated.
That post
prompted an especially noteworthy email from someone concerned that I’m not
being ‘Christlike,’ because I ‘call people names.’ He said, in part:
“You
aren’t spreading Christianity when you talk like that. The whole message of
Jesus was that we should be nice to people because we want them to be nice to
us. That’s how we can all be happy. Period. It’s that simple.”
Be nice to
me, I’ll be nice to you, and we’ll all be happy. This is the ‘whole message’ of
Christianity?
Really?
Jesus Christ
preached a Truth no deeper or more complex than a slogan on a poster in a
Kindergarten classroom?
Really?
A
provocative claim, to say the least. I decided to investigate the matter, and
sure enough, I found this excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount:
“We’re
best friends like friends should be. With a great big hug, and a kiss from me
to you, won’t you say you love me too?”
Actually,
wait, sorry, that’s from the original Barney theme song.
God help us.
We’ve turned the Son of God into a purple dinosaur puppet.
There’s no way to be certain, but most theologians believe that, despite
popular perception, Christ looked nothing like this.
I don’t
recognize this Jesus.
This
moderate. This pacifist. This nice guy.
He’s not the
Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold
Savior.
Compassionate,
yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.
He
condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.
On one
occasion — or at least one recorded occasion — He used violence. This Jesus saw
the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about
it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. He fashioned a whip (this is
what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants
away. He turned over tables and shouted. He caused a scene. [John 2:15]
Assault with
a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance.
In two
words: not nice.
Not nice at
all.
Can you
imagine how some moderate, pious, ‘nice’ Christians of today would react to
that spectacle in the Temple? Can you envision the proponents of the Nice
Doctrine, with their wagging fingers and their passive aggressive sighs? I’m
sure they’d send Jesus a patronizing email, perhaps leave a disapproving
comment under the news article about the incident, reminding Jesus that Jesus
would never do what Jesus just did.
Personally,
I’ve studied the New Testament and found not a single instance of Christ
calling for a ‘dialogue’ with evil or seeking the middle ground on an issue. I
see an absolutist, unafraid of confrontation. I see a man who did not waver or
give credence to the other side. I see someone who never once avoided a dispute
by saying that He’ll just ‘agree to disagree.’
I see a
Christ who calls the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers. He labels them
murderers and blind guides, and ridicules them publicly [Matthew 23:33]. He
undermines their authority. He insults them. He castigates them. He’s not very
nice to them.
Jesus
rebukes and condemns. In Matthew 18, He utilizes morbid and violent imagery,
saying that it would be better to drown in the sea with a stone around your
neck than to harm a child. Had our modern politicians been around two thousand
years ago, I’m sure they’d go on the cable news shows and shake their heads and
insist that there’s ‘no place for that kind of language.’
No place for
the language of God.
Jesus
deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. He stirred up
division and controversy. He provoked. He didn’t have to break from established
customs, but He did. He didn’t have to heal that man’s hand on the Sabbath,
knowing how it would disturb others and cause them immense irritation, but He
did, and He did so with ‘anger’ [Mark 3:5]. He could have gone with the flow a
little bit. He could have chilled out and let bygones be bygones, but He
didn’t. He could have been diplomatic, but He wasn’t.
He could
have told everyone to relax, but instead He made them uncomfortable. He could
have put them at ease, but He chose to put them on edge.
He convinced
the mob not to stone the adulterer [John 8], and you’ll notice that He then
turned to her and told her to stop sinning. Indeed, never once did He encounter
sin and corruption and say: “Hey, do your thang, homies. Just have fun.
YOLO!”
The
followers of Nice Jesus love to quote the ‘throw the first stone’ verse — and
for good reason, it’s a beautiful and compelling story — but you rarely hear
mention of the exchange that occurs just a few sentences later, in that very
same chapter. In John 8:44, Jesus rebukes unbelieving Jews and calls them ‘sons
of the Devil.’
Wow.
That wasn’t
nice, Jesus.
Didn’t
anyone ever tell you that you can catch more flies with honey, Jesus?
Of course,
you’d catch even more flies with a mound of garbage, so maybe ‘catching flies’
isn’t the point.
While we’re
often reminded that Jesus said, ‘live by the sword, die by the sword,’ we seem
to ignore his other sword references. Like when he told his disciples to sell
their cloaks and buy a sword [Luke 22], or when He said that He ‘didn’t come to
bring peace, but a sword’ [Matthew 10].
Now, It’s
true that He is God and we are not. Jesus can say whatever He wants to say. But
we are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like?
Well, He is,
among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive.
He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry.
He is always
loving.
Christ was
not and is not a cosmic guidance counselor, and He is not mankind’s best
friend, nor did He call us to be. He made dogs for that role — our destiny is
more substantial, and our path to it is far more challenging and dangerous.
And nice?
Where does
nice factor into this?
Nice:
affable, peachy, swell.
Nice has
nothing to do with Christianity. I’ve got nothing against nice — nice is nice —
but even serial killers can be nice to people. They generally are exceptionally
affable, except when they’re murdering. That means they’re nice to, like, 97 or
98 percent of everyone they meet.
I guess
they’re following Christ almost all of the time, right?
And
tolerance?
Tolerance is
easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction;
intolerance is action. We are called to refuse to tolerate evil. We are called
to get angry at it and actively work to destroy it.
Who’d have
guess it — anger is far more godly than tolerance ever could be.
Obviously
I’m not suggesting that anger is automatically, or even usually, justified.
Christ exhibited righteous anger; righteous anger is the sort
of anger that naturally fills our soul when we confront the depths of depravity
and sin. It is wrong to seethe with rage because someone cut us off in traffic
or gossips about us behind our back, but it is also wrong to feel no anger when
babies are murdered and the institution of the family is undermined and
attacked.
Anger is
good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God. Just as
Christ’s intolerance, like the intolerance we’re commanded to have, stems from
a desire to save souls and defend Truth.
Even when we
have righteous anger, we do not have carte blanche to act on it in anyway we
please. But, according to the Bible, there are times to use
strong language, there are times to cause a scene, there are times
to hurt people’s feelings, and there are times when we might need to use
physical force.
Jesus told
us to turn the other cheek when we are personally attacked; He never told us to
turn our backs entirely and let lies spread and evil grow.
So, enough
with the niceties.
Christians
in this country sound too similar to the the Golden Girls
song, and not enough
like the
Battle Hymn
of the Republic. There’s too much ‘thank you for being a friend,’ and not
enough ‘lightening from His terrible swift sword.’
We’re all
hugging and singing Kumbaya, when we should be marching and shouting
Hallelujah.
We’re nice
Christians with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.
Enough,
already.
I think it’s
time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit; the spirit of Christ.
I think it’s
time we ask that question: ‘What would Jesus do?’
And I think
it’s time we answer it truthfully: Jesus would flip tables and yell.
Maybe we
ought to follow suit.