One of the most annoying things about the Christian Right is that they try to reposition Jesus as an angry warrior for Right-Wing causes. Jesus was remarkably silent about the wrath of God although you would never know this from the Jesus these Christians describe. Sean Walsh, in TCW Defending Freedom, reacting to Bishop Budde’s inaugural church service where she reminded Trump of Jesus’ compassionate approach and urging him to consider it when he makes his decisions, says Jesus was a difficult person who would be reviled by liberal Christians because he advocated for adherence to Hebrew laws.

This is a pretty nice trick. He ties Christians to the Old Testament’s angry God, the punishing God, the God that will send you to Hell for any wrong move. But Jesus wasn’t all that much on punishment. Remember the woman who he saved from stoning. He just wanted her to sin no more. He saved her from death which, according to Hebrew law, was the appropriate end for this woman. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is Jesus then an angry warrior for Hebrew Law when he actively worked to prevent it from happening?

The reason that Jesus urges compassion is that all humans are sinners. The men with stones. The woman being stoned. Even his own apostles, his most trusted friends, would disappoint him. Every last one of us. Jesus realized that people will sin and keep sinning. Some day, we could wind up on the wrong side of the stone thus the reason for compassion when dealing with sinners.

Walsh ignores another big problem with the Old Testament Law. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books are chokablock full of things that modern Christians ignore. Forgive your debts every seven years. How many Christians do that? I am betting none. Christians having been picking and choosing what they follow and what they will ignore for centuries. Jesus would want us to follow the entirety of these laws.

No better example can be found than divorce. Jesus actually talked about divorce so I imagining it was important to him while completing ignoring homosexuality which the modern Christian Right want complete adherence. Jesus had a very ancient Hebrew outlook on divorce. He didn’t like it one bit. Given that there are vastly more heterosexuals than homosexuals, divorce should be a bigger problem for Christians than homosexuality.

So, then, where is the outrage with Trump’s marriage history. Well modern Christians have come to terms with divorced Christians. Second marriages involving a divorced person can even be performed in many churches without a second thought. If Jesus is a cultural warrior for values, Jesus, being Jewish, would want adherence to all Judaic Law. This means the laws detailed in the Old Testament.

Walsh is making a big assumption about Jesus here. Jesus would be offended by immigrants and would strive to keep them out. There is little evidence that this is true. Given what we know from the New Testament, we know Jesus spoke repeatedly about compassion and forgiveness. I think it is safer to say this is what Jesus was concerned about and not the Hell and brimstone prophet that Walsh and his compatriots are so wild about.

Jesus said “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In my youth, people rarely, if ever, talked about homosexuality. They did, however, talk a lot about divorce. Divorce was considered a big sin. Politicians who divorced risked being defeated at the next election if they divorced. Elizabeth Taylor was pilloried in the Senate for her many marriages and her seduction of married men. Divorce really meant something.  

But nary a word about homosexuality which, admittedly, was understandable. People didn’t really talk about heterosexuality much either so it makes some sense that I didn’t hear anything about homosexuality. Sexual conversations were taboo. Still, people made a point out of telling me that divorce was wrong and why it was wrong. There was no doubt where the Church stood.

The sexual revolution of the 1960’s opened up the conversation. When gay people started coming out, this new visibility caused a conversation that was largely ignored for much of history. However this doesn’t explain the rather benign treatment of divorce in 21st century Christianity. I rarely hear Christians decrying divorce with the same ferocity as they do about homosexuality. Now Christians have every right to give their opinion on what is and what is not a sin. I have no problem with that.

What is annoying, however, is that divorce, a common mortal sin, has dropped off the radar for Christians while homosexuality has become a burning issue requiring frequent condemnation and correction. Some Christians are adamantly opposed to adapting their doctrines regarding homosexuality but are remarkably flexible when it comes to divorce. Can anyone say that divorced people (henceforth known as adulterers) are subject to the same level of animosity as gay people. Some want homosexuals excluded from civil marriage. Some object to selling wedding cakes to gay people because this somehow supports the gay life style as opposed to a simple business transaction. Why are adulterers allowed to remarry? Would the righteous bakers object to selling a wedding cake to a remarrying adulterer?

The modern Christians emphasis on gay sin, which only a small number of their congregants are committing, over divorce, which makes up a much larger group of their congregants is puzzling. Sin is sin. Well, there has to be redemption in order for there to be forgiveness. The sinner has to stop committing the sin. Is this happening with adulterers? Wouldn’t redemption for an adulterer be not having sex any longer with their new spouse? I think we all know this isn’t happening. Adulterers are welcomed back into many churches with open arms despite the fact that they are continuing to have sex with their new partner. So, why then, does the homosexual have to stop having sex in order to be forgiven while the heterosexual adulterer can continue on his merry way.

Christians lost the cultural battle over divorce. Too many church members are divorced now for them to fight divorce. The churches risk alienating potential members if they were to renew their battle against divorce. Hell, in Protestant churches, the pastor could be divorced. This is how pervasive divorce is. Ministers are committing a grave sin, a sin that Jesus felt particularly important enough that he talked about as a sin, and these same ministers rage on about the sin of homosexuality. How can these people be taken seriously as fundamentalist Christians when they continue to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe.

The modern Christian seems to think if he is in a heterosexual marriage, his ticket is punched and all he has to do is to get to heaven. He no longer has to worry about divorce or, for that matter, adultery as long as it is heterosexual. Which is a sad commentary on modern Christianity. A cursory reading of the Bible will show that Jesus had other concerns other than gay sex. Off the top of my head, I can think of feeding the poor, focusing on saving souls as opposed to acquiring cash and turning the other cheek when attacked by an enemy. But, no gay sex is the problem. If that is all Christianity can offer, they are doomed.