Pete Buttigieg: Fool or Wolf in Lamb’s Clothing?

Written by Laurie Higgins

Claiming to be a Christian, faux-married, homosexual Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg wields the Bible as a political weapon with which to bludgeon conservatives. It’s odd then that fellow “progressives” don’t chastise Buttigieg for violating the separation of church and state as they do when theologically orthodox Christians cite their faith as informing their public policy positions. Let’s not forget the chilling words of homosexual New York Times writer Frank Bruni who re-envisions the First Amendment in such a way as to circumscribe narrowly the heretofore free exercise of religion:

I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts.

Buttigieg claims he’s been historically uneasy discussing his faith, attributing his unease to submission to biblical admonitions against showy, prideful displays of religiosity:

I was reluctant to talk about (religion) for a long time…. There’s Scripture on this, you know. Jesus said, “When you pray, be not as the hypocrites are, standing in the synagogues and street corners.”

Apparently, the heretic Buttigieg has gotten over such reluctance. Now he openly touts his faith, which consists of embracing those parts of Scripture that comport with personal desire and either reinterpreting or rejecting the inconvenient parts. Most notable has been his implicit claim that God creates homoerotic desire:

If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. That’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me–your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.

It’s weird that Buttigieg thinks God created homoerotic desire, since we learn in Leviticus that “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” and in 1 Corinthians that “… neither the sexually immoral… nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God.”

If Buttigieg is a smart as his disciples claim, surely, he knows that theologically orthodox Christians—you know, the Mike Pences of the world—don’t think his homoerotic attraction was chosen. What theologically orthodox Christians believe is that fallen humans choose which of their unchosen feelings they may act upon based on God’s unchanging Word. Does Buttigieg believe that God permits humans to act on all feelings that are unchosen, powerful, and seemingly intractable?

In a July debate, Buttigieg cited Proverbs 14:31 (NASB) to criticize opposition to raising the minimum wage:

Minimum wage is just too low. So-called conservative Christian senators right now in the Senate are blocking a bill to raise the minimum wage when Scripture says that whoever oppresses the poor taunts their Maker.

“So-called” conservative Christians? So, in Buttigieg’s view, the mark of a Christian is support for a particular minimum wage, but his support for legalized late-term abortion is not? How does he reconcile his support for human slaughter with this, one of his “favorite verses”?

Whatever you did for one of the least of these… you did for me.

And what does Buttigieg make of these words:

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. 

Not only is support for a particular yet unspecified minimum wage a mark of authentic Christianity to Buttigieg, but so too is support for homoerotic activity, same-sex “mirage,” and the creation of intentionally fatherless or motherless families—which he and his “husband” plan to do soon. The latter is curious in that it’s clear from Scripture that God’s will for children is that they be raised by mothers and fathers.

No one in society should oppress the poor, but how did Buttigieg arrive at the conclusion that the current minimum wage is oppressive? What would constitute a non-oppressive minimum wage? What if a federal law mandating a higher minimum wage results in companies cutting hours or jobs? Would that result be oppressive, and, therefore, would the cause—that is, the increase in minimum wage—constitute oppression?

In a town hall meeting hosted by Jake Tapper, Buttigieg, with alternately bug-eyed faux-astonishment or furrowed brows of faux-bafflement said this about Vice President Mike Pence:

My understanding of Scripture is that it is about protecting the stranger, and the prisoner, and the poor person, and that idea about welcome. That’s what I get in the Gospel when I’m in church. And [Pence’s] has a lot more to do with sexuality and… a certain view of rectitude. But even if you buy into that, how could he allow himself to become the cheerleader for the porn star president?

Buttigieg finds it astounding and confusing that Pence would think Scripture has anything to say about moral rectitude in matters sexual. Buttigieg engages in sexual behavior that both the Old and New Testaments unequivocally condemn and supports the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital unions as “marriages,” in defiance of Jesus’ own definition of marriage, and condemns Pence for his theological orthodoxy regarding sexuality.

Moreover, he condemns Pence for working for the good of the country by serving under a man not known for moral rectitude. But does serving for deeply morally flawed persons constitute cheerleading for their moral flaws? If so, all the people who worked for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Lady Killer Ted Kennedy, his profligate brother JFK, and Bill Clinton have some ‘splainin’ to do.

Has Buttigieg considered that perhaps Pence seeks to serve his country by offering wise counsel to a morally flawed man and to set an example of moral rectitude in a nation polluted by moral dissolution—a country in which moral rectitude is mocked and reviled?

Perhaps Buttigieg’s reference to moral rectitude has to do in part to Pence’s wise decision not to spend time alone professionally with women other than his wife—a position many male doctors and pastors hold. If so, how does Pence’s decision on this small issue constitute his whole understanding of the gospel message? Does Buttigieg’s view of the moral rectitude of sodomy constitute his whole understanding of Scripture?

How does Buttigieg know what Pence’s understanding of Scripture is? Does his intimate knowledge of Pence’s understanding of Scripture derive from just the answers Pence has given to questions posed to him? Does Buttigieg’s apparent knowledge derive from Pence responding to the obsession Leftists have with deviant sexuality and the redefinition of marriage that grew out of it?

Ironically, Leftists obsessed with eradicating theologically orthodox views of sexuality and upending culture to serve unbridled and perverse sexuality call conservatives obsessed with sexuality when they dare to react to Leftist obsessions. Nice rhetorical jujitsu on the parts of cultural regressives like Buttigieg.

But Buttigieg is wrong. Scripture is not either about protecting the stranger, prisoner and poor person or protecting the vulnerable from body- and soul-destroying lies about sexuality. It’s both and. We should both protect strangers, prisoners, and the impoverished and protect the vulnerable from body- and soul-destroying lies about sexuality.

The Bible mandates that Christians voluntarily feed the poor; care for widows, the fatherless, and orphans; show hospitality to strangers; and remember prisoners. There are no biblical mandates for governments to allow open borders, sanctuary cities, or lawbreaking. There are no biblical mandates that governments should provide education, housing, childcare, or medical care to foreigners residing in sovereign nations illegally. Quite the contrary.

Perhaps Buttigieg is unaware of the biblical distinction between “aliens” or “strangers” and “foreigners.” Dr. James K. Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School clarifies the issues Buttigieg confuses:

Nations small and large had clearly recognizable borders…. Permits akin to the modern visa were issued to people entering another land…. The Israelites were well aware of the need to respect territorial sovereignty. [I]n the ancient biblical world, countries had borders that were protected and respected, and that foreigners who wanted to reside in another country had to obtain some sort of permission in order to be considered an alien with certain rights and privileges. The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” … and the foreigner… in biblical law is stark indeed…. [A]liens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner… did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the [alien/stranger] as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.

What all churches should teach as the central gospel message is that because fallen man is incapable of living a sinless life, God sent his son to live a perfect life and die a substitutionary death on the cross for all who choose to follow Christ. Christ’s righteousness is thereby imputed to them. Buttigieg, however, seems concerned not with the central gospel message but, rather, with what the Bible requires of Christians in terms of how they interact with and treat others. This is what the Bible teaches regarding Christian obligations to their neighbors:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind necessarily entails loving God’s Word—his special revelation of his will. And loving our neighbors as ourselves necessarily entails desiring that they too love God’s Word—even the inconvenient parts—with all their heart, soul, and mind. These commandments include sharing all of God’s eternal, transcendent, universal moral prescriptions and proscriptions regarding caring for the less fortunate and sexual ethics.

Daniel Burke, CNN’s religion editor, inadvertently spoke truth when he claimed that Buttigieg’s “search for God contains a few crooked lines.” How different Buttigieg’s crooked path that leads to destruction looks from the path described by professor of Systematic and Historical Theology Dr. C.C. Pecknold’s pastor who preached that “every mountain in our hearts should be ground down by repentance; every valley filled in by the virtue that makes straight the path for the Lord.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:


Stand With Us

Your support of our work is needed, and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on FacebookTwitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is vital if we hope to be a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us and our 501c4 work by making a donation HERE, or by sending a gift to Illinois Family ActionP.O. Box 93Mokena, IL  60448.

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFA office at (708) 781-9371.

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry
81

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com