Cherry Picking

Conservative Christians and Biblical Cherry-Picking

This is a letter I wrote to a conservative evangelical Christian that I care about. This person sent me a short clip of Charlie Kirk speaking to students on various campuses, and asked why I thought that Kirk was considered divisive and even hateful. This is how I replied.

I love and care about you guys. That’s why I don’t write you off in the way I have most Trump supporters. We obviously have fundamental disagreements about many things, and need to accept that we have flaws that we have to tolerate if we want to have a relationship. You don’t think that anyone who supports a woman’s right to an abortion can be a truly moral person. I don’t think that anyone who supports Donald Trump can be a truly moral person. But we’re still part of each other’s lives for the long haul. I hope.

The only thing that could change that for me is if you start to accept the beating, jailing, and possibly killing of protestors, as Trump gets more scared of losing power, and becomes more violent. If you believe the lies about hating America, needing to send troops into my city, and needing to “crack down” on “radical left” protestors, you’ll basically be saying that I’m the enemy. I may be arrested as he gets more repressive. I sing at rallies. I’m an easy target. I constantly post what I consider to be truths about his authoritarianism. If he deems protestors a “risk” to America and to the “security” of the country, he may begin sending people to other countries for incarceration. You probably think that such a thing is liberal paranoia. If so, I think you have blinders on.

I listened to the clip you sent me. I liked what I heard – there was definitely a side of him that was nice and even charming. He smiled a lot and rarely lost his temper. Part of that was because he was smarter and more articulate than most of the college students he “debated.” I have seen clips (I can reference them if you’d like) where he was going up against people who were equally articulate, and he did become more agitated and aggressive.

You may have noticed that in my article, I pushed back against some of the outright haters. I did my research, found his exact words, and looked to place them in context. Many people were saying that he advocated stoning Gays. I clarified that he was arguing with a woman who wanted to use Leviticus; I pointed out that some of his statements about Jews were not about their inherent inferiority, but about their support of liberal causes; I made it clear that he didn’t applaud the attack on Paul Pelosi, but was stating (stupidly, in my opinion) that the attacker should be out on bail in SF if he would be out in Chicago. It was important for me to find out specifics before jumping on any anti-Kirk bandwagons.

Now, I did find direct, in context quotes that were pretty damning:

He did, in fact, state that MLK, Jr. was a “bad guy” and “awful.” Those are divisive words in any context.

He did claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a “huge mistake” This is what that act provided for:

Key Provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

1. Title II – Public Accommodations

It outlawed discrimination in hotels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

2. Title III – Desegregation of Public Facilities

It encouraged the desegregation of public facilities and authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to enforce this.

3. Title IV – Public Education

It authorized the federal government to assist with the desegregation of public schools.

4. Title VI – Federally Funded Programs

It prohibited discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found to violate Title VI, it may lose its federal funding.

5. Title VII – Employment Discrimination

It banned employment discrimination and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to help enforce the law.

6. Title I & V – Voting Rights and Legal Enforcement

It seems to me, _______, that anyone who cares at all about equality would support all of those provisions. Kirk’s main objection seemed to be that it created a DEI-based mediocrity in America. First, that’s a very divisive assertion, and second, it can be easily proven to be plain wrong. The Right’s dreaded DEI-based incompetence is BS. I would argue, and wouldn’t have any difficulty proving, that people of color who were brought into the workforce were just as competent as the white folks who had been getting those same jobs by nature of their race. In fact, I’d say with confidence that there were countless white men who took jobs that should have gone to smarter, more qualified black or brown people.

He took this to absurd lengths with his statements about Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, four very smart, successful African American women. He claimed that they did “not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.” Any of these women could think, act, and achieve circles around most white men in our society, including the imbeciles on Faux News and the reverse-DEI constitutional illiterates Neil Gorsuch and Brett Cavanaugh. And if he thinks that about those four successful women – oh, and he also implied that Oprah, the nation’s first African American female billionaire only got ahead because of DEI – what must he think of every other woman of color? It’s racist, it’s wrong, and it’s extremely divisive.

As far as violence goes, I’m not even going to comment about the statement concerning a number of deaths being the price a society pays for the 2nd Amendment. We could certainly argue that amendment, but not right now. There’s too much other material to cover. However, I hope you can see that people who have lost a child to school shootings would consider this belief divisive.

He wanted to show executions on television – possibly with Coca-Cola sponsorship. Barbaric and repugnant, but maybe not divisive. Maybe you guys think that would cut down on crime. Sit down with a nice bowl of buttered popcorn, a refreshing glass of Coke, and watch some guy be killed. It will probably be a Black guy, since Blacks are 3-4 times more likely to get the death penalty than Whites who commit similar crimes; if the murdered person is white, the chance of getting the death penalty goes up astronomically. And you can be assured that the executed person will be poor. Nobody with money ends up on death row, no matter what they do.

But here’s one I love: “As far as other death penalties, I think what some of those guys did to Donald Trump, to use the instruments of government to destroy the constitutional order, that should be under consideration.” If that doesn’t disgust you and _______, shame on you both. Nothing that was “done” to Donald Trump was illegal or even undeserving, and Charlie Kirk, this man who you undoubtedly consider a peacemaker and “man of God” was suggesting that the execution of Trump’s political opponents should be considered. That must have included everyone from Adam Schiff to Nancy Pelosi to Bernie Sanders to Liz Cheney to Stephen Colbert to John Legend to Bruce Springsteen to John Kelly to Jim Mattis to Adam Kinzinger to Jack Smith to f-ing anybody! Who knows who Kirk was referring to, but what an unconscionable and, yes, sickeningly divisive thing to say.

He has referred on numerous occasions to January 6th rioters as “hostages.” Don’t you ever try to justify that violent attempt to overturn a free and fair election, in which police were killed and injured, and then talk about caring at all for “law and order.” I’ve stated this before and will probably do so again: If those rioters were left-wing or Black, you, Trump, Charlie Kirk, everyone on Faux News, and 99% of MAGA would have called for life imprisonment and/or the death penalty for every last one of them. Supporting those people was as divisive as one can get.

And then there’s Ross Ulbricht, who I’ve mentioned to you before. He organized a website that did 1.3 billion in business, 73% of it in drug sales. It’s pure rubbish that it wasn’t technically drug dealing because it was simply providing the platform for drugs to bought and sold. If you and _______ believe that, _______, I’m embarrassed for your lack of morality. He was as responsible for drug deaths and addiction than any Guatemalan or Mexican cartel overlord. And yet Charlie Kirk – the guy who said that the U.S. government should use military force against dealers – advocated and lobbied for Ulbricht’s release! Given what I’ve dealt with in my life relating to hard drugs, you’d better damn believe that I find it divisive and reprehensible. If I could take a pipe to Ulbricht’s head, I would probably do it, turn myself in, and face my jailtime. He was/is an unscrupulous, immoral POS; anyone who would let him out of prison (Trump) was/is an unscrupulous, immoral POS; anyone who lobbied to get him released (Charlie Kirk) was/is an unscrupulous, immoral POS; anyone who would justify it was/is an unscrupulous, immoral POS. If you and _______ fall into that category, and you never speak to me again because I called you an unscrupulous, immoral POS, so be it. I’ll be very sad because I love ________ so much, but I don’t want anyone in my life that devoid of morals and integrity.

But, you know, I’ve saved the best for last. I find his, and your entire community’ stance on homosexuality to be cruel and inhuman. You may have noticed that I rarely make statements about religion on my FB page. I comment on just about everything else, but I’ve kept my distance from religion because of you, _______, and your family. I know how important it is to you – the most fundamental part of your existence it seems. There are parts of it that I find wonderful: the sense of community and purpose; the closeness that develops between all of you; the help for needy people who wander in, or that you find through outreach; the activities and cultural offerings (like choir); the fulfilling career it’s allowed _______ to have.

But your firm belief in theocracy – a government and society ruled by your interpretation of the Bible – is frightening to me. I can’t think of anything worse than living in a theocracy, be it Christian, Muslim, or whatever. But that’s what you seem to want – a society, and world, based upon your right-wing interpretation of the Bible. I get the strong sense that you honestly believe that Christianity is the only legitimate religion; going further, that your brand of Christian fundamentalism is the only “correct” form of Christianity. That, in itself, is an incredibly divisive way to look at the world and faith.

There are 8.2 billion people on earth. 2.6 billion of them are Christians. This means that 5.6 billion people don’t think that Jesus is the son of God and that the Bible is anything but an influential novel. I think it’s arrogant to assume that 2/3rds of the world’s population is wrong and is, ultimately, going to burn in hell.

The percentage of Christians is higher in America. 67% of all adults identify as Christian in the United States. 37% of those call themselves evangelical Christians. This means that 23% of adults in this country identify as evangelical, which is characterized by (correct me if I’m wrong): personal conversion experiences, biblical authority, evangelism (sharing the faith), and a belief in salvation through Jesus Christ alone.

What this means is that 23% of the adults in America think that they are justified in pushing their beliefs into public policy that impacts the other 77%. Maybe that’s not what you believe, _______, and I’d appreciate some clarification. But it’s a widely held view – amongst liberals and conservatives – that Charlie Kirk “preached” a brand of what has been called “Christian Nationalism.” The widely accepted description of Christian Nationalism is “one of a political and cultural ideology that seeks to merge Christian identity with national identity, often advocating for the belief that a nation — particularly the United States — should be explicitly governed by Christian principles and values.” Its core beliefs are that: the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should remain so; Christian values should influence laws, education, and public policy; the government should protect and promote Christianity, sometimes at the expense of religious pluralism; American identity is closely tied to being Christian, often excluding non-Christians or secular citizens.

So, perhaps I was going too far in saying that you want a theocracy. There is a difference between Christian Nationalism and theocracy. The latter calls for complete control of a society’s institutions by the clergy, whereby the Christian Right only wants there to be almost complete control - a thorough blending of religious and civic life.

But, and this is a big but: in both systems, a document is used to dictate action and determine what is good and bad. The Bible for Christians; the Koran for Muslims. Charlie Kirk stated that our laws should be based on a conservative interpretation of the Bible. He fiercely claimed that certain people were sinners and should therefore not be treated equally. I assume that you agree, and we’ve arrived at one of my main points about how that belief system is cruel and inhumane. My firm belief is that while many Christians say that their conservatism stems from their understanding of the Bible, it’s actually the exact opposite. Many right-wing people use the Bible to justify their conservatism. How else could they support a man like Donald Trump, who is a poster-child for the “Abominations.” Worshipping idols – check; sexual immorality – check; dishonest practices – check; wickedness and injustice – check and check; lying – check; pride – check; eating unclean animals – check; religious hypocrisy – big, fat, smelly check. The only abomination right-wing Christians seem to care about at all is the one about homosexuality: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13). Most Christians wouldn’t agree with the “put to death” part, but they certainly circle the wagons on a “man laying with a male as a woman.”

This is my problem with using the Bible to determine who is good and bad. Right-wing Christians cherry-pick Biblical passages to support that extreme conservatism.

For example, there a variety of behaviors that can earn a lethal stoning, as laid out in Deuteronomy (17:2-5, 21:18-21, 13:1-10, and 22:20-21), Leviticus (24:16, 20:10, 20), and Numbers (15: 32-36):

1. Blasphemy: Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death.

2. Idolatry: Worshiping other gods or celestial bodies.

3. Adultery: Both the adulterer and adulteress were to be put to death.

4. Incest and Certain Sexual Sins: includes various sexual offenses, some of which called for stoning.

5. Sabbath Violation: A man gathering wood on the Sabbath was stoned.

6. Rebellious Children: A persistently rebellious son could be stoned.

7. False Prophets or Leading Others to Apostasy: Encouraging worship of other gods.

8. Engaged Woman Found Not a Virgin (in certain cases): If a woman was found not to be a virgin before marriage and had deceived her husband.

9. Rape of a Betrothed Virgin in the City: Both parties were stoned if the woman didn’t cry out.

Interesting, right? How many kids would be dead as doorknobs if modern-day Christians adhered to Deuteronomy? But that’s the rub. Modern-day Christians would claim that those old prescriptions are a couple of thousand years out of date. Of course they are, and thank you for blowing apart your theories about homosexuality. You’re using writing from 2-3 thousand years ago, that’s undergone numerous translations, to determine who is a “sinner” and to dictate how people should live their lives. If you don’t think that people should be stoned, but do think that they shouldn’t be gay, then you are cherry-picking. And that’s not just with the angry, vengeful god of the Old Testament. My favorite New Testament verses have to do with slavery. While not outright encouraging it, nowhere are there any entreaties to end it:

1. Ephesians 6:5–9

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ... And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them…”

Colossians 3:22–4:1

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair…”

“Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor…”

Corinthians 7:21–23

“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you... You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.”

Again, I can hear Christians saying that there was no condemnation of slavery during a time in which it was common, but of course, there is now. Once again, point made. Oppression, cruelty, unjust laws, unreasonable admonishments to live a certain way – these were all part of life 2,000 years ago (approx. 3,000 for the Old Testament). They are outdated now! (Unfortunately, as recently as 150 years ago slave owners in the U.S. were still using the Bible to excuse slavery and the barbaric treatment of inferior “creatures.” Only 60-70 years past, African Americans were being hung from trees for speaking out of turn or daring to look at a white woman, by “Christians” who could find any number of passages from scripture to legitimize their vile, inhuman actions.)

Only the worst kind of humans would defend that now. So, then, _______, what does it mean to be a “Bible believing Christian,” as I have heard and read you call yourself? Are you a Bible believing Christian who takes the words in Leviticus and Deuteronomy seriously? Do you believe the part in Leviticus that says a man shall not lay with a male, but waffle on whether or not it’s OK to stone that person to death? Stoning for adulterers? Those who work on the sabbath?

I’ll say it again: I think that you, _______, Charlie Kirk, and most of the evangelicals you know, cherry-pick the phrases to believe and not believe in, and it’s based not on the Bible’s actual words, but your own conservative leanings. Your beliefs about homosexuality are just as antiquated as the belief that women who weren’t virgins on their wedding day should be stoned. Saying that the 31 million people in the US, and from 4-800 million people in the world who identify as LGBTQ, are sinners and are lesser human beings is antiquated. It’s terrible. In my estimation, it is an abomination.

Because, in essence, you are telling gay people that they shouldn’t exist. Don’t get me wrong or take this further than I mean it. I’m not for a second saying that you want gay people killed. You have no problem with them as living, breathing sentient beings. But you don’t want them to exist as the people they are. If it were up to you and Charlie Kirk, each one of those millions of LGBTQ people would not be a gay person. They would go through conversion therapy and/or renounce their gayness, accept Jesus Christ as their savior, and go find a person of the opposite sex to sleep with, love, and possibly marry. You would have them wipe out the person they are to become the person you claim your God wants them to be.

That brings up a question I’ve always had, and I think I know the answer, but please tell me why there are so many LGBTQ humans if your God thought it was so awful? I’m guessing you’ll claim that God created good and bad, but gave everyone free wills so that they could ultimately choose good; he made gay people but expected them to use their will to reject their “sin” and become nice, normal heterosexuals. Or did Satan (the old default for anything bad) get his claws on those hundreds of millions of people and turn them into sinners?

Either way, or possibly something completely different, you tell gay people that they aren’t right, they aren’t OK, they aren’t acceptable, they are an abomination, and in the final analysis, they should not exist as the people they are. Wow, _______, that’s certainly not divisive. And it doesn’t matter what tone of voice you use, or if you declare love for that person you don’t want to exist. Screaming “You’re Not OK,” or whispering it, or saying it with a smile, as Charlie Kirk often did, doesn’t change the viciousness of the message. I was disturbed when I saw your post “True love means confronting someone’s sin rather than accepting it.” (I’m paraphrasing, because I can’t find the actual post). To me, that is truly insulting. “I love you, but I don’t think that you should exist in your present form. Please be someone you’re not. Marry someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be happy even if inside you’re miserable.” You would choose inner turmoil and misery for someone rather than the health, love, and happiness they find in being who they are. (I hope that you don’t believe the ludicrous lie that gay people choose to be gay. You may see the occasional “convert” who travels the right-wing church circuit tearfully telling the story of their return to God and personhood, but they are part of a miniscule exception.)

So, that’s my long-winded response to the video clip you sent me. I understand the sadness and anger that you and others are feeling, and I can accept the idea of waiting to criticize him. Also, if I mischaracterized your beliefs I’m open to talking about any part of it. Though I used your name, this letter was obviously to both you and _______, and I’d be happy to discuss it with both of you. Heck, if I ever make it back there again, I wouldn’t mind sitting down in a room full of your congregants and hashing some of this stuff out. I really would be interested in knowing how you guys can interpret the Bible in the way that you do and not consider it cherry-picking. For example (I thought I was done – guess not!), there are passages in the Bible that express acceptance and love for foreigners:

Leviticus 19:33–34

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 10:18–19

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”

Exodus 22:21

“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.”

Matthew 25:35–40

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Hebrews 13:2

“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”

3. Romans 12:13

“Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female...”

Admittedly, those are general statements that are open to interpretation. Of course they are, as is just about every line in the Bible! Your interpretation is a conservative one, and it’s based on a more modern idea of the immigrant or foreigner: There are too many of them; some are legal and others illegal; they take jobs; they commit crimes; the eat pets; they eat up your tax dollars. OK – that’s legitimate, but admit that it’s based on conservative ideology rather than biblical truth! It would be just as easy to interpret those words in a more liberal manner; in fact, a more general acceptance of the “foreigner,” without the sometimes virulent condemnation (by Kirk, Trump, and others), would be more closely in line with what the words actually state. You are placing the words in the context of modern immigration concerns. That’s fine, but don’t call yourself a “Bible Believing Christian.” Call yourself a Christian who believes in his/her own specific interpretation.

Another example. There are so many passages in the Bible about helping the poor and needy that listing a small percentage of them would take another twenty pages. Here are a few:

Deuteronomy 15:7–8: “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites... do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”

Proverbs 14:31: “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”

Isaiah 58:6–7: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen... to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter?”

Leviticus 19:9–10: “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges... Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.”

Matthew 25:35–40: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Luke 14:13–14: “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.”

Luke 6:20–21: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

Acts 2:44–45: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.”

Galatians 2:10: “All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”

James 2:15–17: “Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food... what good is it if you do not help them? Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

Luke 3:11 – “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

John 3:17 – “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?”

Just as with the above example (immigrants and foreigners), it would be simple and logical to interpret those words to mean that the poor should be cared for in all manners possible: giving someone a dollar bill at a traffic stop; providing food for the needy every Thursday evening at a church; building homes for poor people; having clothing drives for the homeless; government giving “welfare” to single mothers; funding “Head Start” programs that help inner-city kids succeed. But right-wing Christians take it all to mean that charity and giving must be a completely personal decision. “I’ll give to a man on the corner or feed people at the church, but I don’t want government to spend my tax dollars on poor people.”

I can understand your belief that charity should be based on personal choice rather than government action, but you need to understand that such a view is based on a right-wing political ideology – not on adherence to biblical dictates or even suggestions. You get to interpret the Bible in any way you choose, but admit your bias; don’t claim that it’s based on the Bible’s actual words and your “correct” interpretation of those words. You read the Bible through a thick ideological lens, which leads you to certain conclusions; the opposite conclusions are just as valid, and are really more consistent with what’s printed on the pages.

There, _______ and _______. Now I’m done.