Inviting Persecution
A recent article in an online news source1 mentioned that a group of 'Christians' had been swarmed by a mob of homosexual activists in the Castro District of San Francisco. The web site sfTravel.com describes Castro District as the city's "gay village"2.
For several days, the group had been gathering to sing and pray on the street in the Castro District. One of the worshippers claimed that the group "had merely organized a peaceful fellowship and wasn't there to condemn homosexuals." In the end, they were escourted out of the community by police, fearful for their safety as obscenities and threats came from hundreds of homosexual men who had flooded the streets from nearby bars.
A woman who was participating in the street-side fellowship declared, "We worshipped God in peace, and we were about to die for it." Some will survey the situation and esteem these for beign persecuted for their faith. Such zeal! Such devotion! Such selflessness! Nay, such stupidity!!
Now, don't misunderstand. I affirm that believers must be willing to stand for their faith, even amidst times of trial and trouble. However, there is a huge difference between suffering persecution for our service to the Lord and what these people did. To enter a bar region of a homosexual community on a Friday night is nothing short of issuing an invitation for persecution. In fact, calling what these people invited upon themselves "persecution" in my mind degrades the true meaning of being persecuted for one's faith. Come on! Did these folks really expect that they would go and worship in the streets of Sodom and not get a reaction from the people?
Understand, I'm not defending the riot which ensued, nor am I defending the homosexual lifestyle. but, when one does the math - the outcome is very predictable. These people voluntarily went into a snake pit, and then were surprised when they almost got bit! That's not brave, nor is it a sign of godly devotion - it's just plain dumb.
Solomon wrote, "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven..." (Ecclesiastes 3:1) He then proceeds to mention contrasting pairs (ie. live/die, plant/pluck, kill/heal, etc.). There is a time (and place) to join others in the praise of God, and then there is a time (and place) when it is best not to. What these folks did is no different than if a group of homosexuals gathered outside a church building and began to flaunt their sexual freedom. This was neither the time nor the place.
“Such zeal! Such devotion! Such selflessness! Nay, such stupidity!!”
I am not saying that believers should be ashamed of their faith. But, "...there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak" (Ecclesiastes 3:7). Neither am I saying that believers should not pray, teach, or worship where homosexuals might hear or see. But in or near bars is not a profitable place to reach contacts or to engage in meaningful worship.
Certainly, the lost need to be taught. God sent Jonah to preach to the city of Nineveh. He did not simply send a leaflet and wait for them to come to him. He "...arose and went to Nineveh...", and walking through the city "...cried out and said, 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!'" (Jonah 3:3-4) The people of Nineveh responded to his message, believed God, and turned from their sin.
John the Baptist was not timid to speak about immorality. Herod had married his brother Philip's wife, and John exclaimed, "It is not lawful for you to have her." (Matthew 14:4) In the end, John lost his head for having stood for his faith.
The apostle Paul very plainly stated that "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution." (2 Timothy 3:12) Friend, we don't need to go looking for persecution. If we do what is right, it will find us.
Concerned for the safety of the two angels who came from the LORD, we find that Lot "...insisted strongly..." that they stay at his house. (Genesis 19:2-3). Outside, a riotous mob formed. Lot tried to reason with them (Genesis 19:6-8), but one cannot reason with a mob.
When a riot arose in Thessalonica, Paul & Silas were sent away by the brethren (Acts 17:10). Again, a riot arose in Ephesus, and the disciples would not allow Paul to go out to the people (Acts 19:30). We need to use good judgment in where we go and when we choose to speak.
Never deny the faith. Always be ready to give a defense for your hope (1 Peter 3:15). But also, in our service to the Lord, let us be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Don't go looking for religious persecution; it can find us on it's own. Serve Him with faith, zeal and wisdom.
Sources cited
1) worldnetdaily.com
2) sfTravel.com
Article Navigation:
Answering The Atheist
The Atheist's Complaint:
Was Haman an Agagite? Esther 3:1 says he was, but 1 Samuel 15:2-3, 7-8, 32-33 say that Agag and all Amalekites were killed in a God-ordained genocide. Is there a contradiction?
Response:
God's command was that Saul and the people of Israel "...go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:2-3) It was to be a complete destruction, not only of the people, but even of their goods and livestock.
Had Saul been focused on doing the will of God, then certainly all that was associated with the Amalekites would have been destroyed. However, we find that he did not do as the Lord commanded. The prophet Samuel charged, "Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD?" (1 Samuel 15:19) Saul did his own will and claimed it to be the Lord's will. He claimed, "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites." (1 Samuel 15:20). How much of the mission of the Lord did Saul do? He did not kill Agag, but brought him home as a trophy. He did not destroy the oxen, sheep, camels and donkeys. but permitted the people to keep the best of them for themselves.
The questioner wrongly assumes that ALL the Amalekites were put to death. That is what God commanded, but not what Saul did. In fact, we read of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1, 18; 2 Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 4:43. And, when Saul eventually died in battle, it was an Amalekite who claimed to have dealt the death blow to the fallen king (2 Samuel 1:7-10).
Since Saul did not perform his God-given mission, and the Amalekites were permitted by him to survive, it is certainly possible, even likely (given the hatred that Haman had for the Jews), that Haman was a descendant of Agag, king of Amalek.
There is no contradiction.
This article is in response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible.