Last December, 5 days before the second most holy day of the year for Christians, now Presidential Candidate Herman Cain wrote a piece for Erick Erickson’s Red State where he states this (emphasis mine):
For 30 years, He learned the ways of the world without becoming of the world. He then changed the world for the better.
He led without a mandate. He taught without a script. His common sense parables filled people with promise and compassion, His words forever inspiring.
He never condemned what others believed – just sin, evil and corruption.
He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration.
For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check. Nevertheless, he completed all the work He needed to get done. He didn’t travel by private jet. He walked and sailed, and sometimes traveled on a donkey.
But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail, and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights. He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong. And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.
He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.
His judge was a higher power.
The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.
Herman was trying to paint Christ as the “Perfect Conservative” (the title of the post, in fact). But here’s the problem:
At least a couple of Herman’s points are DIRECTLY contradicted by the Biblical record, specifically the points I emphasized above.
The first is perhaps the most obvious, as even many non-Christians have heard the phrase “turn the other cheek” associated with Christ. Indeed, in that particularly famous passage, what is Christ doing? He is directly condemning the beliefs of the Pharisees, REPEATEDLY.
The passage comes just after the Beatitudes, during the famous Sermon on the Mount, and is found in Matthew 5:21-47 (King James Version presented here, though the linked site will let you read it in dang near any version you want):
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
That is SIX TIMES in that one passage that Christ “condemns what others believe”, yet Herman is saying it never happened? The old-timers have a word for this: heresy.
And that isn’t even the only easily proven heresy Cain has in this article that he penned. Let’s look at the “liberal court” line.
In fact, it wasn’t a “liberal” court, CERTAINLY not by contemporary American standards. Instead, as we see in Matthew 26:57-65:
57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Indeed, it was the “high priest” and the “council”, ie, what was then known as the Sanhedrin – the Jewish Supreme Court, essentially. This group of extremely conservative religious leaders, whose beliefs Christ had been condemning quite frequently over the last three years or so, brought in “false witnesses” (verse 60) and convicted Christ of blasphemy, which was (and is, depending on the level of orthodox) a capital offense.
Now, I’m not quite enough of a Biblical scholar to know the exact nuances of the definition of “blasphemy” the Sanhedrin ascribed to then, but I CAN link to the current Webster definition of: blasphemy
Do Cain’s false teachings meet the definition of that word? I’ll leave that to the reader.
Now, here is where Cain truly becomes a conundrum for Christians who might otherwise want to support him over others due to differences in religious belief with say, Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman’s Mormonism or even Gary Johnson’s Lutheranism or whatever any of the other candidates claim: Is it right to claim you support the “infallible, inerrant word of God” and yet also support a preacher who actively promotes false teachings? After all, does not the Apostle Paul condemn false teaching and those who spread it at least a few times?
Indeed, check out Titus 1:10-11:
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group.11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain
and Romans 16:17:
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
I don’t know about y’all, but I consider the Christian education I received as a kid to be pretty good. My parents and church stressed learning as much about the Bible as possible. I learned all kinds of facts and figures, could quote quite a few memory verses, could put all the books in order no matter how jumbled they were, could easily find my way quickly to any passage in a print Bible (the net didn’t exist/ wasn’t widely used back then), and quite a few other things that were fairly routine for the environment I was in.
I was taught as I have discussed here, that Christ condemned the religious leaders of his day repeatedly and was eventually executed because of it. Herman Cain’s heretical teaching is contrary to that, and more precisely contrary to what the Bible explicitly teaches.
Thus, the Christians’ Cain Conundrum is easily solved, according to Paul: We should keep away from him.