"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:4)
On Wednesday (24 March 2021), National Party MP Christopher Luxon gave his maiden speech in the 53rd New Zealand Parliament. You can read the full transcript of his speech on the official NZ Parliament site here. A former CEO of Air New Zealand, Mr Luxon is regarded as a future leader of the National Party and has made no secret of his ambitions. He is a professing Christian and devoted three paragraphs of his speech to talking about his faith. Naturally, the mainstream media in NZ cared far more about that than just about anything else he said in his speech. I shall quote the relevant paragraphs here and then discuss them further. A particular point I want to examine is whether the Jesus that Mr Luxon professes is actually the true Jesus of the Bible or another Jesus of his imagination. Anyway, here now are the paragraphs in question:
"It seems it has become acceptable to stereotype those who have a Christian faith in public life as being extreme; so I will say a little about my Christian faith. It has anchored me, given my life purpose, and shaped my values, and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself. My faith has a strong influence on who I am and how I relate to people. I see Jesus showing compassion, tolerance, and care for others. He doesn't judge, discriminate, or reject people; he loves unconditionally.
"Through history, we have seen Christians making a huge difference by entering public life. Christian abolitionists fought against slavery; others educated the poor and challenged the rich to share their wealth and help others less fortunate. The world is a better place for Christians like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Kate Sheppard contributing to public life.
"My faith is personal to me. It is not in itself a political agenda. I believe no religion should dictate to the State, and no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others. As MPs, we serve the common cause of all New Zealanders; not one religion, not one group, not one interest. A person should not be elected because of their faith, nor should they be rejected because of it. Democracy thrives on diverse thinking and different world views."
The first thing that stands out to me is that Mr Luxon gives no indication of having ever repented of his sins and been born again. Nor does he actually appear to have a personal relationship with Christ. He quotes no Scriptures either. I don't think he quotes the Bible at any point in his speech. You would think that someone who had been born again in Christ would want to preach the Word at least a little bit. But I do not believe that Mr Luxon has been born again. The Bible says that we can know when someone is a true Christian (who has repented of their sins and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation) and when they are not. Now let's examine these three paragraphs in a bit more detail.
Mr Luxon observes, accurately enough, that Christians, especially those in public life, are stereotyped as extreme. Certainly, the mainstream media, Hollywood and other branches of the entertainment industry do their utmost to paint Christians and Christianity in as negative a light as possible. There's a reason for that though. The world (people who are still lost in their sins) hates the Lord Jesus Christ (the real Christ of the Bible, that is) and also hates those who are born again believers:
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:18-20)
"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14)
"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." (1 John 3:12-13)
Mr Luxon then goes on to talk about what his Christian faith has done for him, but he does not say what Jesus Christ has done for him. And frankly, what he says about his professed faith doesn't sound much different to what a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whoever might say about theirs. When he says his faith has "given his life purpose", it makes me wonder if he could a follower, or at least a fan, of Rick Warren (a false teacher who's very big on the so-called "purpose-driven life"). However, that is just speculation on my part. He says his faith influences who he is and how he relates to others. Again, anybody professing any type of religious belief could say the same. Indeed, even an atheist could probably say these things too (perhaps with one or two minor adjustments).
Now let's get on to what Mr Luxon actually says about Jesus. Here at least, he sounds a little different to what someone of another religious faith would. But is the Jesus of Chris Luxon the Christ of the Bible? Or "another Jesus" as mentioned in the Scripture at the start of this post?
He starts by saying that Jesus shows compassion, tolerance and care for others. Certainly, there are many examples in the Gospel of Jesus showing compassion and care for others. But as for "tolerance", it depends on how you define it. For example, if you define "tolerance" as being OK with sin, then Jesus was most definitely not tolerant. He once drove money-changers out of the Temple with a whip (not very tolerant!) and frequently upbraided the Pharisees, religious leaders of His day, for their hypocrisy (again, not a lot of tolerance there!). On the other hand, if you define tolerance as something more like enduring hardship and persecution without retaliation, then Jesus was tolerant in that sense. "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously" (2 Peter 2:23) I'm sure Mr Luxon would know how most of his colleagues would define tolerance, regardless of their party affiliation. (They would favour "politically correct" tolerance that accepts sin.)
But now comes the real kicker: Mr Luxon's "Jesus" is someone who "doesn't judge, discriminate or reject people; he loves unconditionally". This is NOT the Jesus we see in the Bible. Just read Matthew 23 for instance, particularly from Verse 13 onwards. There's an awful lot of judging going on there! In fact, Jesus Christ has the authority to judge the whole world: "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." (Acts 10:42) "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2:16) There is much more Scriptural evidence besides to show that Jesus Christ does indeed judge, so Mr Luxon's non-judging Jesus is a false Christ.
As for the word "discriminate", that can mean a few things. If Mr Luxon means treating some people worse than others on the basis of race or nationality, then in that sense, Jesus most assuredly does not discriminate. For example, in John 4, He speaks with a Samaritan woman, even though He was a Jew and the Jews normally had nothing to do with the Samaritans (as explained in Verse 9). However, He does discriminate between the saved and the lost, such as in John 2:23-25, "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
Now, not only is Jesus discriminating here against people who professed to believe on Him (not because of their outward appearance, but because He knew their true hearts), but He is also rejecting them by not committing Himself to them. And there will be those who come to Christ on the very Day of Judgment and find themselves being rejected:
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23)
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)
So the true Jesus Christ of the Bible does reject people - specifically, unrepentant sinners. (Note also how those people in the Matthew passage above are boasting about THEIR WORKS. They are relying on THEIR WORKS to get into Heaven.) However, He does accept all who come to Him in true repentance and faith:
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)
"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21)
The evidence of Scripture very clearly shows that the "Jesus" Mr Luxon believes in is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. All that's needed is to look at his words, then search the Scriptures and compare the things Mr Luxon says with what the Bible says, and it becomes readily apparent that Mr Luxon serves "another Jesus".
In the next paragraph, Mr Luxon talks about the differences Christians have made in the world. Notice, however, that he makes no mention whatsoever of souls being saved. He does not, for instance, say something like this:
"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by the faith that is in me." (Acts 26:18)
This was the commission Jesus Christ gave to Paul during his conversion on the road to Damascus, and this is what He would have all Christians everywhere do (through the preaching of the Gospel). But Mr Luxon has no interest in that. Instead, he is focussed entirely on social justice. He names three people who were prominent in various social justice movements and who professed to be Christians: William Wilberforce (a former British Prime Minister who fought against the slave trade), Martin Luther King, Jr. (a prominent civil rights activist in the US, especially in the 1950s and 1960s) and Kate Sheppard (who fought for women's suffrage in New Zealand).
Now, William Wilberforce may well have been a bona fide Christian (i.e. born again). Some primary historical documents about him are available on Project Gutenberg. For instance, there is a discussion about real vs. false Christianity here. Then there is a large amount of his private correspondence with various people, which you can read here. Last but certainly not least, there is a detailed paper in which he lays out his case against slavery, which you can check out here.
Martin Luther King, Jr., however, was NOT a born-again Christian. Christopher J.E. Johnson has made a detailed examination of King's faulty doctrines and his lifestyle, which included fornication with multiple women, and you can read that here. Another Christian writer who has examined King in some detail is Dave Mallinak, who writes "The Village Smithy" blog. He is somewhat more favourable in his view of King than Mr Johnson, but also acknowledges that King was both immoral and a heretic. Read Mr Mallinak's post about King here. So he is not such a great model of Christian for Mr Luxon to be citing.
As for Kate Sheppard, renowned for being an early feminist (red flag right there), there is no evidence that she had a saving faith in Christ. Moreover, like Martin Luther King, Jr. she is much-loved by the world (and specifically, modern feminists and leftists in NZ). Had she been a true Christian, the world would have hated her. About the only evidence of Kate Sheppard having any kind of Christian belief is her involvement in the Women's Christian Temperance Union (read their page about her here). The only quote by Sheppard they mention is this: "All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome". That sounds nice, but when you look at it closely, it's actually rather vague (what exactly is her concept of separation?) and certainly doesn't give any indication of a saving faith. It is also noteworthy that the WTCU wanted to create a "a just society within the ideals of Christian socialism". Christian socialism has about as much to do with Biblical Christianity as Christian rock music (that's a topic for another day). So once again, Mr Luxon has not chosen a very good example. Although if he's only interested in "social justice Christians" and not born-again Christians who want to preach the Gospel (though there is certainly a place in Biblical Christianity for doing charitable works or speaking up for the oppressed), it could be said he's chosen well on that front.
We can see than that not only does Chris Luxon plainly believe in a different Jesus to the Jesus of the Bible, but at least two of the three people he cites as examples of Christians were actually not born again believers.
So then we come to the third paragraph (and the last one in which Mr Luxon mentions his beliefs). In this, he refers to his faith, but makes no mention of Jesus Christ. Whereas if you read the writings of the apostles in the New Testament, they talk about Jesus Christ all the time. He describes his faith as personal to him and "not in itself a political agenda". Something Mr Luxon doesn't mention in his speech is his opposition to abortion. Now while I am glad Mr Luxon opposes abortion, it is a political issue (though first and foremost, a spiritual one) and it is rather difficult, if not impossible, for your faith not to influence your politics when it comes to that sort of matter. He says "no religion should dictate to the State". That's a nice idea in principle, but in practice, many laws have been passed or changed because of a certain religious belief or opposition to it. So even if a religion does not directly dictate to the State, it still has considerable influence on at least some of the laws passed. Mr Luxon next days that politicians should not use their political platform to force their beliefs on others. By "beliefs", I assume he means religious beliefs, because there are other kinds of beliefs you can have (like political beliefs). There will be some people though who would vote for a National Party led by Mr Luxon in the hope that he might take New Zealand's laws in a more Christian direction. He would surely be aware of that.
I would agree that our MPs serve (or should serve) the common cause of all New Zealanders. People should be treated with fairness and impartiality. It's interesting that Mr Luxon then says that someone should not be elected because of their faith or rejected because of it. Again, there is a Christian voter base out there who would vote for Mr Luxon precisely because of his faith, and if he becomes leader, he and the more evangelical wing of the National Party would surely look to appeal to that voter base. Also, there are people who, whether he likes it or not, would probably reject him on the basis of his faith (even such a watered-down, "inoffensive" faith as he seems to hold).
A bit later in his speech, Mr Luxon says that he is "a proud member of the National Party" and proud to work with Judith Collins as his leader (even though he hopes to replace her in that role before the next election - not that he made any mention of his leadership ambitions in this speech). Now while it is a fairly standard expression to say you're "proud of/about" something, the fact is, the Bible has nothing good to say about pride. It is better to say that you're happy or pleased about something than that you're proud about it. While these particular remarks by Mr Luxon are not that big a deal, they do perhaps give another indication (though more subtle) about the state of his heart.
As I said earlier, all that you need to do to determine the Biblical accuracy of Christopher Luxon's "Jesus" is compare what he says with what the Bible says about Jesus. When the light of Scripture is shone on what he says about Jesus, it is very clear indeed that Mr Luxon believes in "another Jesus", in other words, a counterfeit Christ that bears no relation (or at best, only a passing resemblance) to the Jesus Christ of the Bible. So if you think that voting National will get you a more Christian government if Mr Luxon becomes its leader, you are likely to be sorely disappointed. He may have one or two more right beliefs than Jacinda Ardern or Judith Collins, but he is no more born again than they are (although Ms Collins made much of her own supposed Christian beliefs during last year's election campaign). At the end of the day, Mr Luxon is a politician, and like many politicians, he likes to be pragmatic and not "rock the boat" too much. He may have a few more Biblically correct beliefs than what he let on in his speech (such as his known opposition to abortion), but if so, why hide those under a bushel? Because he knows that he would lose votes. "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:42-43) Nearly every "Christian" politician is like those chief rulers. They love the praise of men (and in a way, being voted for is a form of praise) rather than the praise of God (living to please Him and rejecting the flatteries and praises of the world). And sadly, like Christopher Luxon, most such politicians, for all that they might sometimes have a few more morally right policies, are every bit as lost as their more socially liberal and generally secular counterparts.
I pray that Chris Luxon will one day come to true repentance and faith in Christ, and that if he is still in politics when that happens, that he might use his genuine faith to make real and beneficial change. But even if that somehow does happen, Christians need to put their trust and hope in God, not politicians who claim to be Christian but in reality are just pandering to a particular voter base (which Donald Trump and other Republican candidates before him have also done in America). Even if a politician is somehow born again, we still need to put our trust in God and not that mere man. As the prophet Jeremiah says:
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." (Jeremiah 17:5)
"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." (Jeremiah 17:7)
No comments:
Post a Comment