The Gospel is MEANT to be Offensive!? Part 2

I do think some LGBTQ people get offended by some teachings of the Gospel, but not for reasons that many Christians think.

To catch you up… the other day I responded to an article from an evangelical pastor/author guy named J.D. Greear in which he called out evangelical churches for their lack of clarity regarding being anti-LGBTQ.

Obviously, I agree with him: churches should be more clear about this.

And obviously, I disagree with him: being gay is not a sin; gay marriage is lovely; God loves and affirms queer people; and so on.

Then I engaged with some of the points he makes in the article, specifically this idea that Gospel—if properly preached—ought be offensive.

In summary I argued that:

A person would only be offended by the Gospel if they found the invitation to the Way of Jesus to be repugnant to their moral sensibilities, because

A thing can only be offensive to someone if they are offended by it, therefore

It’s absurd to suggest that the Gospel/Bible is intended to offend.

That some people might feel a kind of offense to teachings from the Bible is one thing. But the notion that such teachings are intended to, or ought offend, is quite another.

I ended with this thought:

To put it plainly: Something is only “offensive” to you if you take offense to it.

Which means that the idea that the Cross, or the Bible, or the Gospel is somehow intended to be offensive is, in my estimation, nonsense. Literally, it doesn’t make sense. Sure, it might feel “offensive” to some, but only if they resist the invitation to forsake their ways, take up their cross, and follow Jesus.

Again, you might be thinking, “Okay, but Colby, it still kinda sounds like you’re saying the same thing Greear is. I’m still not seeing the difference?”

Thanks for bringing that up again. It means you’re still with me…. I promise you there is a major difference between Greear’s idea of “the offense of the Cross,” and mine.

So let’s get in to it.