Victor Porton's Christian Weblog

In this article I consider whether to confess that we believe in Christ in such a situation as if a gangster with a pistol enters and says, I will kill every Christian.

After careful Bible study I concluded that we are not obliged to confess that we are Christians in situations like this.

This allows us, Evangelical Christians, to raise to the new level in this world and enter politics where before we were unable to enter because they were not wanting to hear us always confessing our faith. And this allows us to find a job which we were before unable to find because before we often were radical fanatics without necessity.

I will reprise the first edition of the text of the article from my main Christian site in this weblog:

[More:]

Bible requires us to be honest always. For example, if somebody will ask you, Do you believe in Christ?, we must answer yes even if this answer may cause our death or tortures.

But what if you sit among a group of people and then a bandit with a pistol enters and says, I will kill every Christian! Are there any Christians among you?, then should we say, I believe in Christ in this case or better to keep silence?

At first it seems that we must say this because of the followings verses of Bible:
(Mark 8:38) For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
(Luke 9:26) For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.
The bandit is a typical sinner from the generation of sinners. We shall not be ashamed before him following the word of the Lord, would be the first opinion.

But now after careful thinking I concluded that no, we may remain silent in this case and to not tell about Christ when it is not appropriate. Now I think that we do not need to confess Christ before this bandit.

That we should confess Christ not always is clear from nearby verses (Mrk. 8:29-30) 29 He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ. 30 He charged them that they should tell no one about him. So we have felt into a contradiction, from one verse we have concluded that we should confess Christ not in any situation but sometimes keep silent, from the other that we must openly confess Christ in any situation. Something was wrong with our conclusion, but what? How we can obey Mrk. 8:38 but not confess Christ before gangsters like this?

It is written also (Mt. 7:6) Don't give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. How these two looking contradictory commandments can be combined? When we met sinner (dog or swine) from this adulterous generation, how to not ashame of Jesus Christ before this generation but at the same time to not throw the pearls of Christian teaching before him?

About these two verses

Now to detailed analysis of Mrk. 8:38 and Lk. 9:26 to explain why it is not a contradiction and these verses do not require us to confess Christ in such situations as before this gangster:

It is important to realize that these are two different verses of Bible. One of these says (Mar. 8:38) ... ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation... and the other says simply (Luk. 9:26) ... ashamed of me and of my words.... So these verses differ of each other.

The differences between these two verses can be summarized in the below table:

* See below.

I think that we should not confess Christ before that bandit because in my opinion nor Mark nor Luke obliges us to do so, but for two different reasons; consider these two verses separately:

Analysis of the situation with the gangster accordingly each verse

Gospel of Mark 8:38

(Mark 8:38) For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Keeping silence before that bandit, would I feel shame of the same kind as a typical sinner and adulterer who does not want to speak about Christ? Would I feel myself so to say united with sinners and adulterers sitting in the same room by common feeling shame? Certainly, no. It is not the same kind of shame, what I would feel is quite different. This is not shame of this adulterous and sinful generation.

So, Mrk. 8:38 (which speaks specifically about shame of this adulterous and sinful generation) is not applicable to us keeping silence before such a gangster.

Would we indeed feel shame in such a case? Yes, we would. But we would be ashamed not words of Christ, but we would be ashamed of presence of that bandit. This is not a violation of Mr. 8:38.

Conclusion: Mrk. 8:38 does not require us to confess Christ before the gangster.

Gospel of Luke 9:26

(Luke 9:26) For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.

I will show that Luk. 9:26 also does not require us to confess Christ before this gangster. However the above explained reasons concerning Mrk. 8:38 do not apply to Luk. 9:26. The reason why we are not required by Luk. 9:26 to say to the gangster that we are Christians is much more subtle than in Mark 8:38.

We will consider two reasons why the requirements of Luk. 9:26 are not as strict as it may look like:

Reason 1: Freedom of choice

Of who is ashamed a possible violator (no we, believers) of Mrk. 8:38 in the situation with the sinful and adulterous gangster? He would be ashamed of Christ not of the gangster because ashaming of sinful and adulterous people is not a shame of this sinful and adulterous generation (they are not ashamed of themselves). However we have already considered Mrk. 8:38.

It is not applicable to Luk. 9:26. So who is ashamed a possible violator of Luk. 9:26, of Christ or of the gangster? He is ashamed either of Christ of the gangster, this Bible verse does not give us an evidence to decide of who of them he is ashamed, because Lk. 9:26 does not specify which kind of shame it is about. It does not require us to think that he would be ashamed of the gangster, but it also does not require us to think that he would be ashamed of Christ, not speaking the gangster that we believe in Christ.

So we have a choice, Gospel gives believers the right of choice by confessing either thing. We have the right to confess like this: If measured accordingly Luk. 9:26, I should be considered as ashamed of the gangster not of Christ in this situation, by the right of choice in the name of Jesus which is on me. So I am not ashamed of Christ.

Reason 2: Measure of the shame

If the above indeed is not enough for you, and you want to re-assure that you will be not punished by God for ashaming of Christ in this case (with the gangster), there are one more reason:

To explain Luk. 9:26 we need to consider the measure of the shame. That is we need to analyze what is the degrees of violations of Luk. 9:26. So we need to find what is the maximum (100%) violation of Luk. 9:26.

In Mark 8:38 it was already 100% violation if one would ashame of Christ even only before sinful and adulterous people such as our gangster. But in Luk. 9:26 it is different. When somebody is ashamed only before sinful and adulterous people, it is not 100% violation of Mrk. 8:38. 100% violation of Mrk. 8:38 would be when one is ashamed Christ before all and before himself.

So if we do not say to this gangster that we believe in Christ we may be considering as falling under effect of Mrk. 8:38 however not in 100% but only partially. On the example of the situation with the gangster, we consider the case when we may be ashamed of speaking about Christ only in the case if confessing Christ would threat us a danger or a harm (for our bodies).

So, because we have done our part (kept silence) of Mrk. 8:38, what will be Christ's recompense to us? It will be that Christ may be also ashamed of us but not always, only in situations when not being ashamed of us would threat a danger or a harm to the body of Christ that is to the church (see Eph. 1:22-23).

So we now see that in this case Christ may be considered somehow ashamed of us but in this case it is not bad, it is even good, if your purpose is to serve to the church. Christ's recompense will be that He will take care (guard) of your church, in these situations when speaking about you and your deals would harm your church, by not telling about you when telling about you not appropriate for the interests of the church. Isn't it good?

My conclusion is that by these two reasons we are not obliged to confess Christ before that gangster (following Luk. 9:26).

We have used to mix these two different verses (Mr. 8:38 and Luk. 9:26) as if these would be the same verse. But I have shown that we need to separate them and analyze separately. If we would intermix them then we would got the result that we must confess Christ before that gangster because we would consider to be ashamed before that gangster a 100% measure of all shame with no freedom of choice of an other variant. This is an example of a mistake to which intermixing different Bible verses may lead.

My advisers were indeed right

Some people were telling me that I should not speak about Christ when not appropriately (for example, in reply to a question of an anti-religious employee, a bandit with a weapon, etc.)

So finally in this sophisticated way I have come to the same conclusion which they were telling me. (Luk. 10:21) ... you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in your sight. However I have come to it in a different way than these my advisers. Whether they were not knowing or just unable to explain me why my reasoning was wrong, they have not explained me why these words of Jesus do not require us to behave in such the way. As so what they were advising me to do for me meant just to ignore these words of Jesus completely. And this was unacceptable for me. But now when I understand why following the words of Jesus I am indeed not obliged to behave in such the way, I do not ignore the words of Jesus, despite of I may now behave as they were advising me. I have lost many years in conflicts with all the World before I understood it.

I would be a traitor and a coward if would ignore words of Jesus

If I would cease to speak about Jesus when not appropriate without understanding the above theology I would just be a coward and a traitor who would confess Christ only in politically beneficial situations. I have been basing my not being a traitor and a coward (especially in the issue of openly telling my opinion) on this commandment of Jesus; if I would ignore this commandment I would be a traitor and a coward. So it have been indeed important for me to follow this commandment.

Years of life lost in troubles

Before I have understood this, my life was spent in religious discrimination, I was only in dangers and in loses, because I have been confessing Christ in inappropriate situations, e.g. before gangsters, before evil (potential) employees, and before stupids which do not understand what I say. (I do not say that this is the only reason of religious discrimination against me but this is a big part of it.) I was sent away from several churches because of my radical sayings which were not needed, but which I have been speaking just because I wanted to say all what I think Bible tells on this subject. Moreover I was worthless (harmful) preacher which was telling not only what is good for the hearers but all what I know from Bible on this subject, often things inappropriate which would only harm or deceive the unprepared hearers.

Until I recently understood this, most of my life was useless. The more I was achieving the more problems I had because I had more possibilities to witness about Christ before all kinds of swines and dogs and to go into a trouble. So that I was completely messed what to do in my life. Read more about my problems in this weblog.

Exam obstacle for Christian politics

So I have shown that in these two verses is concluded a sophisticated politics. After study of this biblical teaching, you are set free and are allowed to not confess Christ in situations threatening a danger for you (or your friends). Before studying this we were however not allowed to do so and were should to come to the death in such situations, what is better than to be a traitor or a coward.

I conclude that these who do not know the above are simply not allowed to live. Who has not studied this should self-liquidate in meeting with bad people who kill these who confess Christ and confessing Christ before them. It is because who has not studied this cannot solve such problems politically and politely, and is to solve these problems in the rude way.

Certain knowledge level is required for proper Christian politics. Christ does not allow Christians not knowing certain things to do any politics. This preaching is one of the things which are needed to know for any Christian politics.

But why Jesus Christ has said this?

Well, why then Christ has said these things to us in a so subtle way by which we were confused and are made radical fanatics by our misunderstanding of words of Christ? The answer is given by the preceding verses: (Mrk. 8:36) what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Everybody of us would easily conquer the World by cunning politics if we would be not limited by being hated fanatics and radicals which cannot do any successful politics at all. Yes, it is so, any believer can conquer the world as it is written (I John 5:4-5) 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world: your faith. 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

But Christ has been not wanting that we would do this (actually overcome in this world before the proper time) because doing this without proper preparation (studying of Christ's way of doing politics) we would go out of our proper moral limits in pride and would harm our own souls. He has made us unable to build our own state, as we were made worthless politicians by Christ, so that we would not become world politicians like Catholics. It is written (Ro. 4:10) Christ is the end of the law, that is Kingdom of God is so to say an anarchy (not a state); the purpose of Jesus here is that we were so bad politicians that never would be able to build a state, for warranty that Kingdom of God will be forever (anarchy never broken, a state appearing never again).

(Mrk. 8:34) He called the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, Whoever wants to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. To follow this commandment of not ashaming Christ and His words even before sinful and adulterous generation were our taking cross (going to the death in hardships of religious discrimination). We were not allowed to abstain from this cross that is just to violate this commandment. However now we have become theologically enough strong to bear this cross easily.

Now after studying this we, students of Christ, can move to the next course, that is to enter into politics and start to do Christian politics, what we (former radical fanatics, but now not) were never doing.

Finally: I strictly recommend to preach this in all churches, so that I would become the last unrestricted fanatical preacher who has felt into a unreasonable conflict with the World in his superfluous zeal. The period of when we Evangelical Christians were (not for nothing) considered by others as a radical sect cult may come to end in this time. It is not an endless conflict.

Copyright © Victor Porton 2005. All rights reserved.