McAtee Contra Emergent Hugh Halter and Trinity Church Lansing Michigan Preaching

I don’t know who Hugh Halter is. Frankly, I would have been content to have never been pointed to his ramblings. However, a member of the Church I serve brought my attention to his ministry because Mr. Halter had spoke at the Evangelical Mega Church in Lansing Michigan. I listened to the sermon he preached there on 21 July 2013 and while there are areas to take exception (The Church is bigoted, and homophobic) with in the sermon there are more exceptions to take in Mr Halter’s blog post below.

http://hughhalter.com/blog/2012/08/08/hugh-bakes-a-cake-would-jesus-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-wedding

This post is really quite confusing as it presents some truths in the context of half truths and some ideas that are not truth.

I thought I would dissect portions of Mr. Halter’s post in order to locate some of the fallacies.

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

by Hugh Halter

Last week, the national news posted a story about a bakery owner who chose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It probably got some attention because it appeared to be similar to the well-publicized Chick-fil-a story. The stories were quite different in nuance, but nonetheless brought up very serious and real questions every Christ follower should take seriously.

I posted this question above and had over 3500 onlookers and a truckload of great responses within a few hours. I’ve tried to synthesize many of the responses down to a few simple thoughts that I hope will be helpful for those serious about incarnating their lives into the real world around us.

First, thanks for your respectful tone. Even though the Christian responses were a 50/50 split on the question, there were some great perspectives on both sides and I hope we all learned a few things.

Second, I know that many who read this will not be Christian in orientation. So forgive the “internal doc” tone. I am trying to speak to our own Christian tribe about how we view sin and people in the world. In Jesus’ time and obviously now, people often use the word, “sinner” in a derogatory way to label people that weren’t “in the know” or who didn’t live based on the same set of religious/moral/theological convictions that the establishment did. In Jesus’s time it was the Jewish religious system based on the Law of Moses, and today, it continues in many tribes of Christianity. For the sake of the argument, I’ll keep using the word “sinner” as it has been incorrectly applied, in hopes that we can at least agree that we all share the same problem. We’re all jacked by sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) It is not true that “in Jesus’s time the establishment lived according to the Law of Moses.” In point of fact one of the realities of Jesus ministry was to constantly correct the establishment on how they had twisted the Law of Moses to mean what it did not mean. They did not live according to the law of Moses and that is one reason why Jesus constantly turned on the religious establishment. The problem of the religious establishment during Jesus day was not that they lived according to the law of Moses but rather it was that they didn’t live according to the law of Moses and then insisted that they were. And worse yet they were condemning people as “sinners” when those whom they condemned as sinners didn’t live according to their mutated version of Moses. So, Mr Halter is in error here and this error is significant as we will tease out more later.

2.) This is so true that Jesus treats the religious establishment as “sinners,” during His ministry. Are we to fault Jesus because He treated some people who were sinners as sinners?

And what was the difference between those Jesus treated as sinners and those who were ascribed with the title of “sinners” by the religious establishment? Well, one difference that we see in Scripture is that those who were ascribed with the title of “sinner” recognized they were sinners while those of the religious establishment refused to recognize themselves as “sinners.” Jesus could eat with sinners and publicans because they recognized themselves for what they were.

3.) Jesus is not opposed to Christians, who recognize their own sin, holding up God’s law as a standard for all people. St. Paul was a sinner yet he has choice words for certain sinners. St. Jude and St. John do as well. So, it is true, that we are all “jacked by sin,” but merely because we are all “jacked by sin,” that does not mean that we who are jacked by sin, who are saved by grace alone, are not to hold up God’s standard among men.

Mr. Halter continues,

I must also be honest with you and say that I, have to submit my wisdom under the wisdom of the revealed scripture in regards to all facets of life. I don’t understand everything, like everything, and will have a long list of questions to reel off when I see God, but I believe that He did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.

However…

This article isn’t about trying to convince people of my view on this. This article is to address how any of us, of any persuasion sexually, theologically, or religiously, should treat each other. Especially how Christians should treat people that don’t believe what they believe. I will submit that anything that doesn’t reflect the original design of God is sin and that list is long. And if we for sake of argument can say that homosexuality is a sin, I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Mr. Halter is on the record of saying that Homosexuality is sin. Of course he won’t say that, except to make reference to it “for the sake of argument.” Mr. Halter opts instead to say, “I believe God did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.” Of course if that is true then it also means (though Mr. Halter would never ever say this either) that sexuality outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage is damned by God.

2.) Now in his sermon Mr. Halter suggests that all sins are equal, but here he says that some sins are not equal. In his sermon Mr. Halter emphasizes the necessity to overlook sins and not be judgmental regarding sins but here we see full judgmentalism. Does Mr. Halter have any idea how badly he is going to make people feel who have not treated the gay lesbian community the way he thinks the bible teaches that they should be treated. Obviously for Mr. Halter his non judgmentalism and overlooking of sin only applies to not being judgmental of the sins that he does not want to be judgmental of.

3.) When Mr. Halter says that the way the Christians have treated the sodomite community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and even greater offense to God is he talking here about the great offense of Christian Bakers not to agree to bake a cake for a sodomite marriage? Is that the great offense that God is so displease with? Taking a stand to not sanction societal public square acceptance of sodomite marriage is an action that God is offended with? Really?

Mr. Halter continues,

“The question of whether or not Jesus (The corner bakery owner) would bake a cake for a gay wedding? is posed so that we can finally talk about the dignity of each person’s story and how the love of God can break into all of our brokenness so that his revealed will and blessing can touch us all.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Before the sinner can find relief he must discover that his dignity is rags before a Holy and Just God.

2.) We already know how the love of God can break into all our brokenness. The love of God can break into all our brokenness by preaching law and Gospel. The Law reminds us of how God condemns us for our sin. The Gospel tells us that there is one way to escape God’s just condemnation. If anybody comes to Christ not having their dignity broken by God’s law they have not known God’s Gospel.

3.) There really are Arminian overtones in Mr. Halter’s words.

Mr. Halter continues,

“For dealing with the cake situation or other “grey zones,” here are a few anchors I try to keep in mind.

1) We don’t have to Condone or Condemn. In so many situations we often think that we have to pick either a stance of condoning (which we assume happens if we fail to confront or form real friendships) or condemning (which we assume is a necessary response if we simply speak the truth and call people to account for their behavior. ) Some think you should just “LOVE” without truth, and some think you should just “TRUTH” em’ regardless of love. What you’ll find in the life of Jesus is that he doesn’t pick one or the other. He did neither.

Bret clarifies,

This is not true as Scripture testifies everywhere. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees he condemned them. He called Herod, “a fox.” This was not complimentary. He called the Syro-Phoenician a dog. You think she felt condemned with those words? Jesus condemned Peter by calling Peter “Satan” once. Jesus did not condone the Woman at the Well (John 4). In point of fact he put his finger on her sexual sins. Jesus did not condone the woman caught in adultery. He told her to “sin no more.” It is true that Jesus ate with “sinners and publicans,” but those “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with understood that they were sinners and publicans. I meet very very few people today who would admit that they fell into the category of “sinner and publican.”

So, when Mr. Halter says “Jesus neither condoned nor condemned sin” he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Halter continues,

In John 1:14 it says that Jesus came into the world in the form of a man and helped us to see the glory of God because he was full of Grace and Truth. As an example of what he hoped every Christian would be, he showed how grace (non-judgment) and healing, restorative words of truth can go together like peanut butter and jelly. He was the most non-judgmental person you would have ever met, yet people wanted to hear what he had to say about their broken lives and when he spoke, people did change and turn from sin. Jesus even said that he “did not come into the world to condemn but to save.” And he did exactly that. People around him didn’t feel condemned but they responded to his truth.

Bret clarifies,

Grace and truth in John 1:14 is a reference to the covenant keeping character of God in the Old Testament of whom it was often said was full of mercy and truth (cmp. Gen. 24:27, Ps. 25:10, Prov. 16:6). To say that Christ is full of grace and truth is to say that Christ is God. Grace here does not mean “non-judgment.”

Jesus was non-judgmental to people who understood and embraced the idea they were sinners. The woman who washed Jesus hair with tears understood she was a sinner. The woman with the blood issue that Jesus healed understood she was a sinner. The Syro-Phoenician woman admitted she was a “dog.” She understood she was a sinner. One problem with Mr. Halter is he wants to accept the sinner and their sins without them accepting God’s pronouncement that they are sinners. God will never accept people who do not accept they are sinners and we do people no favors by letting them believe that their sins are not condemned. In point of fact, the only way I can offer the Grace of God in Christ to anyone outside of Christ is to expose their sin. Praise God that he daily shows me my sins of selfishness, and pride that I might be reminded that they are only buried in Christ.

Mr. Halter continues,

He regularly ate with the worst of the worst. Clearly, many would have pulled him aside and said, “Jesus, by eating with them, you realize that you are causing them to feel a false sense of acceptance by you, don’t you think it more wise to avoid letting them feel accepted so that they might come to their senses and stop doing what they are doing?”

In one such dialogue, he said, “I didn’t come for the healthy but the sick.” In that statement, he was saying, “to help the sick you have to be with the sick and by being with them in their sickness, I’m not actually making them more sick, but creating a pathway to pull help them out.”

Bret clarifies,

Jesus regularly ate with the worst of the worst who understood that they were the worst of the worst. They had been condemned their whole lives by people who were just as guilty of the sins that they were condemning the sinners and publicans for involving themselves in. Instead of offering to the worst of the worst a merit system that they could never fulfill Jesus spoke to these sinners, who acknowledged their sins, of a God who would not pile on them more requirements (as the Pharisees did) but instead who would offer forgiveness and rest to those who acknowledged themselves to be burdened and heavy laden.

It would be a terrible injustice to those who rebel against God to give them a false sense of acceptance. God is a judge to all those who rebel against God’s tender mercy. We do those who are in high rebellion against God no favors by suggesting that God is ok with their rebellion. In the same way we do no favor to those who are burdened with their sins to not tell them that the way to be released of their burden of sin is to trust Christ alone who has reconciled a justly angry God to sinners who embrace and acknowledge their sin.

From reading and listening to Mr. Halter I get the sense that he wants the Church to act as if sin is a minor inconvenience. I get the sense that Mr. Halter has never considered the Holiness and Justness of God. I get the sense that Mr. Halter thinks that God salvifically loves everyone. I have no authority or warrant to tell the Baker outside of Christ that God loves him with a salvific love, just as I have no authority or warrant to tell the sodomite couple that God loves them with a salvific love. I can tell them both that God commands all men everywhere to repent. I can tell them that can have rest from the burden of their sins if they will trust Christ. But I can not tell them, for I have not authority or warrant to tell them, that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives.

Now, I quite agree with Mr. Halter that we have to be with the sick in order to offer a solution. That is one reason why I am writing this. I am seeking to be with the sick and what I am finding is that Mr. Halter is one of the sick. I am seeking to provide a way out for him. In point of fact one of the best places to be with the sick these days is to be with the sick people in the emergent movement.

Mr. Halter continues,

“In other words, being present with people in the mess of their lives, being true friends, fully accepting, is the way of Jesus. It is neither condemning nor condoning to make a cake or be at a wedding of people that don’t believe what we believe… It is simply being a friend.

Bret clarifies,

What Mr. Halter misses here is the public side of this whole issue with the cake bakers and the sodomite wedding. The cake bakers understand that this is more than a personal issue. This is a public square issue. The LGBT crowd is seeking to mainstream sodomy. They are seeking to force upon those who disagree with the sin of sodomy, to accept sodomy in the public square as a legitimate belief expression. There is nothing wrong with a Christian Baker to say …”Because of my love to Christ and His revealed authority I can not do this.” Mr. Halter’s reasoning would fault the Christian incense maker for refusing Caesar to make incense that would be required to be pinched as worship unto Caesar. Mr. Halter would say to the incense maker,

“Come, come … by filling this order of incense you are not condoning worship of Caesar.”

However, the incense maker like the cake Baker would be creating a means by which worship of Caesar is seen as acceptable public square activity. Even so the cake baker is creating a means by which sodomite marriage is seen as an acceptable public square activity. Neither Caesar worship nor sodomite marriage is an acceptable public square activity.

Mr. Halter is in serious error.

One can be a friend by accepting an invitation to have a drink or a cup of coffee with the sodomite couple. One can be a friend by taking them to a ballgame or a decorating party but one must think about the implications upon the public square and the social order by doing anything that gives tacit approval to the social order restructuring itself in a anti-Christ direction.

I hope this is a case where Mr. Halter merely has not thought through his position.

Mr. Halter continues,

To those who say that baking a cake communicates support for a non-biblical defilement of the institution of marriage, I’d suggest that we defile the institution of marriage all the time. 50% of the heterosexual Christian marriages end by defiling the institution through divorce. And good percentages of those who don’t divorce defile the marriage daily as men cheat on their wives through pornography. None of it is God’s intended design! In Matthew 5:28 Jesus went further, “You who lust in your heart after a woman have committed adultery!” In other words, don’t think just because you were married in a traditional heterosexual union, that you’ve done the institution justice and have the right to judge the next wave of people who will fail my design.”

In line with Jesus argument with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11, Jesus would say to the non cake bakers, “You who have modeled a perfect marriage, go ahead and withhold the cake, but if you have ever sinned against my design of marriage, you better start whipping up some frosting!”

Bret clarifies,

Mr. Halter’s argument here is that since we all sin in our marriages therefore we should have no public square standard for what marriage is. This is a specious way of reasoning. It is like saying that all because everybody in a lifeboat sins therefore we better not pay attention to those chaps in the lifeboat who are sinning by trying to dig through the bottom of the port side.

Also, Mr. Halter gets John 8:1-11 completely wrong. When Jesus said he did not condemn her, the word “condemn” there is a legal term referring to a sentence in a court. Jesus is saying that there was no evidence upon which to find her guilty. The fact that she was a sinner is seen in Jesus admonition to her to “go and sin no more.” A judgmental bon voyage if there ever was one.

The Cake Makers are not in a legal court setting as the woman caught in adultery seemed to be. The sodomites were not in danger of being stoned to death by the cake makers. Mr. Halters reasoning is nothing but stupid.

Mr. Halter continues,

Look, God doesn’t need us to stick up for his created order of heterosexual marriage. The institution of marriage is set not because we do it correctly. It’s set because God created it and marriage will always be his idea. If we don’t stick up for the sanctity of life, life is still sacred because God says so. He’s a big boy and knows that this beautiful union that he intended between men and woman is going to be fraught with brokenness in almost every situation and so baking a cake is not the issue, but not baking the cake would most certainly create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus must have known that advocating for ‘sinner’s doesn’t make them feel better about their sin. It actually opens their heart to someday turn from their sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) God doesn’t need us to stand up for His righteousness and His righteous standards? Is Halter kidding?

2.) Halter again suggests that the best way to do evangelism is by ignoring sin. Curious evangelism.

3.) If everyone goes around murdering everyone should we not try to stop the murder rampage because even if murder is legalized, murder will still be murder according to God’s definition?

4.) I think Halter is afraid of being hated for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom. At least that is what it begins to look like. Don’t mention the sin of sinners to sinners because that would create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus can only hope to influence sinners? Think about it.

Mr. Halter continues,

2) There is no sliding scale of sin

Bret observes,

That is not what Mr. Halter said earlier. Earlier, Mr. Halter said,

“I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.”

Notice the earlier sliding scale of sin.

How Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community is even an greater offense then the act of sodomy.

Hmmm … Interesting.

Mr. Halter continues,

“When I picture this bakery owner trying to decide whether or not he should bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have to ask, what his reasoning or motives are based on. In other words, why did he say NO? I can only think of three reasons.

First, he could have thought that by baking the cake, these men would be pulled deeper into sin so if he made a cake he would be contributing to their ungodly union and sinful lifestyle. Clearly this isn’t the issue and if he baked the cake, these two men would not be more gay or do more gay things? The cake is just a cake! So that can’t be it.

So maybe, as a Christian business owner, he believes that he should represent God in who and how he gives his services away? He might think that since God is clearly against homosexuality, I must display God’s view of sin and never give my services or products to people who are sinning in this way. But consider the hypocrisy if he really sticks to this consistently.

Since gluttony is listed as a sin twice as many times as homosexuality is listed, then he would have to deny giving a scrumptious buttery croissant to anyone that looks to be overweight. And pastors who buy this guy’s donuts should therefore also not serve donuts every week at church, or create two lines and force the more sturdy lot into the glutton free, fat free line. To not do this would be to help people sin, right?

Bret clarifies,

Halter again is entering into the “since we are all sinners therefore we cannot take any stands against any sins” argument. What Halter fails to realize is that there are not glutton societies around forcing upon our social order the official embrace of gluttony as a positive good that all must accept.

Yet, this is what the LGBT crowd is seeking to do. They are seeking to overturn what little remnants remain of Christianity in our current social order.

Of course by Halter’s reasoning Christian Bakers should be required, in keeping with their Christian testimony, to bake cakes for parties that celebrate pedestry or pedophilia or necrophilia. After all, why should anyone ever defend God’s righteous cause. God’s a big boy. He can defend himself. Besides, we wouldn’t want pedophiles or necrophiliacs to feel judged right Hugh? Why, baking a cake for a necrophilia party might be just the way to get necrophiliacs saved right Hugh?

Halter continues to drone on and perhaps I will return to finish off the rest but it is the case that it is yet more of Halter’s psycho agitprop, gobbledygook, half truths, and total misreading of Scripture.