If Robert Jeffress is a bigot, then Mitt Romney is too

If Robert Jeffress is a bigot, then Mitt Romney is toowww.washingtonexaminer.com

Mitt Romney calls pastor delivering US embassy blessing a ‘religious bigot (獨斷論者)’

...Clearly Romney confuses bigotry (偏執頑固)with advocacy.

It is well within mainstream evangelical orthodoxy for Christians to believe the Bible teaches there is only one way to salvation (a restored relationship with God and forgiveness of sin) — the free acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord. Christianity is by definition an exclusive faith because we claim Christ as Lord to the exclusion of all other ideas, persons, or things that may claim to be God. Evangelicals believe that the truth of reality and of the Bible teaches that faith in Jesus is essential.

This is a pretty basic point of logic that to hold an opinion on a matter means that you have excluded all other possibilities. This is true for facts, conclusions, and opinions in matters other than matters of faith.

And most religions are exclusive in the sense that a person claiming to be a follower of that belief system must affirm its core tenets, to the exclusion of any other belief or affirmation that is in conflict. This is a basic requirement of Christianity, and of truth to exclude all nontruth, even though there is a progressive, emergent movement burgeoning for universalism, which is the idea that all religions lead to God. Orthodox Christianity holds that universalism is in conflict with an essential part of our faith, pursuant to John 14:1-6, Acts 16:31, Romans 8, et. seq.

This is hardly a revelation for anyone remotely familiar with basic Christian doctrine and familiar with the Bible. And in our constitutional republic that protects freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, Christians are free to advocate for the truth of the gospel and talk about why we believe what we believe. Romney and others are likewise free to advocate for what they believe, including universalism or Mormonism or whatever-ism.

This is what the Founders meant that government cannot establish a religion. We are not compelled by our government to believe anything or disbelieve anything about God. We are all free to discuss and debate and eventually determine what we as individuals believe about the truth of God. This is actually consistent with the Bible too: Christians believe that God does not compel belief in Him, but offers salvation as a free gift, if we choose to believe Jesus is Lord to the exclusion of all other worldviews.

But what is remarkably self-defeating about Romney’s tweet is that he is calling the discussion itself bigotry, while actually doing the very same thing in his own tweet that he criticizes Jeffress (and the wider evangelical swath of traditional Christian orthodoxy) for doing. Romney clearly doesn’t like Jeffress’ position on the lordship of Jesus Christ. But that does not mean that Jeffress is a bigot.

“Bigotry” is a current favorite insult to throw at anyone who holds any firm position to the exclusion of conflicting opinions on matters of faith. But this is often a very inaccurate label. By definition, a “bigot” is someone who is intolerant of someone else’s views and attempts to forcibly compel compliance with another view (usually through government action), not someone who just disagrees with someone else’s position.

Jeffress, like all genuine Christians, has sincerely held religious beliefs that he advocates for, including insisting that Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and other religious beliefs are in conflict with Christian beliefs. That’s called advocating for a position. Saying that “you can’t be saved by being a Jew” is a position statement on matters of faith, not bigotry toward any other position.

Ironically, Romney is himself advocating for a position that differs from Jeffress, but apparently thinks he may do so without the label of bigot. Why? Romney may not prefer Jeffress to speak at the embassy ceremony, and he is free to voice his opinion on that (for whatever it’s worth). But calling Jeffress a bigot is simply ignorant and actually showing himself intolerant of Jeffress’ beliefs.

One of the best, most wonderful aspects of America is that we have the liberty to disagree with others while allowing the other side to disagree with us. It’s called a fundamental, unalienable right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

Jenna Ellis (@jennaellisJDFI) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. 

( * However, I am against Pastor Jeffress' hypocrisy to defend Trump blindly. That of course includes Jeffress' followers who blindly following the leader. Click the link below for further thinking.--BH--_)

Character Should Still Count for Robert Jeffress, for James Dobson, for All of Us

BY JOHN MURDOCK

Jeffress is correct (?) that a sex scandal or two (or twenty) and layers of lies surrounding them should not flip our assessments of entire party platforms. But neither should a general allegiance to a party blind us to the failings of our politicians and the impact that those can have on a nation.