What Would Jesus Do? | Mark Harrington

Mark Harrington (00:00):

Well Friends 2024 is off and running and so am I. And we are back in the saddle here at the Mark Harrington show. Looking forward to another year of broadcasting. And today we’re going to be talking about what’s going on in culture. We’re going to deal with some comments that have been put forward by someone on M-S-N-B-C. We’re going to try to answer the question, what would Jesus do if we were around today walking the earth and having to defend his words? So stick around. Thanks for being on the program.

(00:47):

Well, it’s good to be back. Mark Harrington here. I took a sabbatical, if you will, for the last two months. I dunno if you noticed, but we played some of the best to Mark Harrington show and a sabbatical for me isn’t really a sabbatical, even though after 30 years of ministry, I’ve really never taken off a large portion of time. This is the closest thing I’ve ever gotten to it. Actually, I took several weeks off. I worked here and there, but it was a nice break, especially after the defeat of issue one here in the state of Ohio. Good time to regroup, spend some time with family. Got to go to Florida, actually took a cruise for the first time, which was a blast. I recommended highly for those of you want to get away, it’s really nice just to be out in the ocean. No internet, no nothing.

(01:36):

I mean, you’re kind of on your own. So I feel very refreshed and back and ready to fight the culture war. So we’re going to be doing that here today on the program. And so to get started, basically what we’re going to do, a couple reaction videos to a broadcast on Ms LSD. That’s what Mark Levin would call it. That’s M-S-N-B-C actually, which I don’t watch. I hope you don’t either. It’s trash, but a lot of people do watch it. And so there was this individual, his name is John Ugal, sang, never heard of him before. Apparently an actor, a comedian. I don’t find it very funny. At least he wasn’t on the show. And a political commentator. And he takes aim at Christianity and specifically the words of Jesus and twists them. And I think it’s important for us as Christians to be able to deal with the way that he interprets the Bible, which is extremely problematic. And the ones on the set with him, of course, are nodding, just basically playing along with his bss. So we’re going to go through a couple of these. There’s probably five or six of them and I’ll do my best to reply. So go ahead and play this first clip again. This is John Fugal sang a political commentator on SNBC. Go ahead.

Video (03:02):

I would love to leave behind right wing fundamentalists and Christian nationalists right wing who use Jesus, who

Mark Harrington (03:09):

Christian

Video (03:09):

Nationalists to celebrate as a prop while legislating and fighting against his actual teachings. There’s a lot of right wing brothers and sisters in this country identify as Christian and they care about the manger and the crucifix and they ignore the 30 years of teaching. 33, well actually three years of teaching he did in between. Yeah, three. Jesus is not an ally of the Republican party. There is no overlap between Jesus and the policies of Donald Trump in South Carolina. They tried to have a bill this year calling for the death penalty for abortion. Where? So pro-life will kill you.

Mark Harrington (03:43):

All right, well there’s a lot there, but what I want to really focus in on is the South Carolina bill that supposedly criminalizes abortion and prosecutes women and creates the death penalty for abortion. It’s a big subject. I know that there’s a lot of difference of opinion here across the board and the pro-life movement as to how we should criminalize abortion. I get it. But here’s the bottom line. The Bible does. He says it doesn’t talk about abortion. He gets into that here. But it does address child sacrifice in the Old Testament. And if you look at passages that talk about olle and bringing your children through the fire, sacrificing them to mole, that’s basically what abortion is. Although we’re not sacrificing our children to a pagan God per se like mole, we are sacrificing our children to the, I guess, pagan belief of self. That is that we matter most and anybody that gets in our way, we have the right to kill them.

(04:55):

So the Bible actually does deal with abortion indirectly. Of course, in the Bible times, they didn’t have the ability to go in surgically remove or kill a baby. So the word abortion doesn’t appear in the Bible for obvious reasons, but it does deal with the issue of murder. If we look at the Exodus chapter 20, verse 13, one of the top 10 10 commandments, it says, thou shall not murder or better said thou shall not shed innocent blood. So the Bible does address murder. And if we can prove that the preborn are human and that they are being killed, then abortion is murder. And so the other thing is this. John Fugal sang who purports himself to be a child of a former Franciscan, was brought up by a former nun. Of course, he was a disgruntled believer, or Catholic wants to come against his own religion here, at least the way he was brought up, which is not surprising.

(06:12):

But John Fuglesang has a beef against right wing Christians. And so he’s focusing supposedly on the words of Jesus themselves. Here’s the thing, it’s more than what Jesus said and what he taught on earth that we should focus on. There’s an old saying that said, what would Jesus do? What would Jesus do? And I think that’s fair enough. We can consider what would Jesus do in a particular situation. But the more important question is what does the Bible say? Because Jesus is part of the, he’s part the triune God throughout the Old Testament. He’s part of the Trinity, who by the way, the Trinity, God wrote the 10 Commandments, that same God presided over the destruction of Sodom Gomorrah. So to just focus on the red letters of the gospels is incorrect. You can’t do that. The bigger question is what does the Bible say?

(07:15):

Because Jesus is part of that triune God. And for murder, God calls for the death penalty. He just does. If you look at Genesis chapter nine, verse six, it says this, whoever sheds human blood by man, his blood shall be shed for in the image of God, he made mankind. So the Bible does address abortion because abortion is murder. We can prove that the unborn are human and those who shed blood innocent blood in this case by man, his blood shall be shed. And so the book of Genesis is basically focusing on this idea of capital punishment, that the civil government has the prerogative to shed blood in the case of murder because those who unborn or kill innocent human beings because God values humans because we’re made in the image of God that their blood can be shed by civil government, not by pro-lifers. He says, pro-lifers will kill you. No, we’re not taking that upon ourselves. The role of civil government. We believe the civil government should, at least according to the scriptures, there should be capital punishment in the case of murder. And so, alright, that’s the first thing here. Alright, second little bit here. John Fugal sang, who is a political commentator on M-S-N-B-C talks about how the Bible never condemns abortion and Jesus never condemned abortion. Go ahead and play that clip.

Video (09:07):

That’s where we’re at right now. Stephen Wright, I would kill for a Nobel Peace prize. Sing the Pope this week and raves, he’s right wing Christians so much because he acts right

Mark Harrington (09:15):

Wing Christians,

Video (09:16):

Jesus and blessing gay unions. Jesus is not anti-immigrant. He commands people to welcome a stranger. He never mentions abortion the Bible, never.

Mark Harrington (09:24):

He doesn’t ever mention abortion. That’s true. Jesus doesn’t mention a lot of things in the three and a half years that we know of, at least that was written down in the gospels. He doesn’t address everything. Jesus was never married by the way. He never had children. So does that disqualify him from speaking to those issues? No, just because he didn’t experience them or he didn’t talk about some contemporary issue that was happening during his day, it doesn’t mean that we can just throw out the rest of scripture. Like I said, it’s not just about the red letters that matter, it’s the entire Bible. What does the Bible say? That’s what we should be asking ourselves. And when he says that Jesus never condemned abortion, well because the Bible doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean that he didn’t condemn murder, right? So for an example in the scripture it says in Leviticus chapter 20 verses two through five, and he’s talking here about children being this is Moses writing.

(10:28):

He’s talking about how in the Old Testament how people would sacrifice their children to Molech. And it says in verse two, you shall also say to the sons of Israel, anyone from the sons of Israel or from the strangers residing in Israel who gives any of his children to mole, there it is. The child sacrifice to the pagan God shall certainly be put to death. This is the death penalty for taking your children to molech and having them killed and child sacrifice, the people of the lounge shall stone him with stones, death penalty. I’ll also set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people because he has given some of his children Tomek, so as to defile my sanctuary and profane my holy name. And he goes on from mare. But the bottom line is this, that child sacrifice was dealt with in the Old Testament by the death penalty, by stoning.

(11:32):

So you could say, well maybe that doesn’t apply in the new covenant. Okay, we could have that debate. But the Bible clearly does prescribe the death penalty for those who kill children in this case, child sacrifice, giving your children to molac. So it comes to this notion that we can just take the words of Jesus and separate them from the rest of the Bible. A lot of people believe that the Old Testament doesn’t apply, that the Old Testament law doesn’t apply anymore to Christians. It’s kind of like in the Old Testament, God was having a bad hair day, he was angry, he was vengeful, he was angry all the time. And then came the New Testament and the gospels and God got saved somehow through Jesus. And now we have Jesus who’s the meek and mild, but God in the Old Testament was angry. That’s the view that a lot of people have.

(12:35):

And of course this guy, he’s an apostate, but he’s trying to pick and choose scripture in this case, the words of Christ supposedly and saying that God does not, that Jesus does not condemn abortion. Where throughout scripture, if you murder, there is the penalty, the death penalty. And so he’s wrong. He’s wrong again. And I just think as Christians, of course these people are just nodding approving of this guy’s interpretation of scripture. We need to be berean being able to discern accurately the word of God. Alright, next clip. He goes into this John Fugal saying again, talks about how Jesus never mentioned gay people. Go ahead.

Video (13:23):

The Bible never condemns abortion. We’ve had two generations of Christians in this country who have been groomed to believe criminalizing abortion is something to do with what Jesus talked about. Christ was a peaceful, radical, nonviolent, revolutionary, never mentioned gay people. He commanded you to pay your taxes to welcome the stranger.

Mark Harrington (13:43):

All right, stop there. So he never condemned gay people. He never mentioned abortion and he never directly condemned gay people. This is true. Okay, I agree. But again, what does the Bible say about homosexuality? Well, and also what does he say about the death penalty? So let’s first go to Matthew chapter 19 verses three through six to talk about how he’s saying that Jesus never condemned gay people or never mentioned them, never talked about the death penalty, therefore he’s anti-death penalty. A lot of people focus on this passage. This is the interaction with the adulterous woman, I believe it is. No, no, this is just talking about marriage. Okay, so Matthew 19, verses three through six, this is Jesus dealing with this question. He says, some Pharisees came to Jesus testing him and asking is it lawful? Think of the context here. They came to trip him up asking is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?

(14:57):

And he answered and said, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. Male and female. Jesus is talking about males and females. Wow. Okay, interesting. In today’s context, that is politically incorrect, no question about it. And said, for this reason, a man shall leave his father. Oh, father and mother, oh not birthing person will be joined with his wife. Ooh, I don’t know. He is misgendering people. This is bigotry and the two shall become one flesh. So they no longer are two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no person, no person is to separate. So John Fugal saying says that Jesus never mentioned gay people. True, but he talked about marriage, he talked about male and female separately coming together and the two shall become one flesh. So that’s number one. Number two, if you go to one Corinthians six verses nine through 11, this gets back to that issue of we need to look at the entirety of scripture, not just the red letters of Jesus.

(16:26):

It’s not just what would Jesus do, although that’s important to look at. We need to look at the entire breadth of scripture because Jesus is throughout of all as the triune God, as part of the triune God and the Trinity. We look at, and this is in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul who deals with this question in one Corinthians six, nine through 11. And it says, and do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither deceived, neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, uhoh. There are those words in the New Testament, the apostle Paul. This is an Old Testament. This isn’t just what Jesus said. This is what the Bible says. Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor the habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(17:28):

That pretty much covers everyone almost. But he does single out this issue of homosexuality here. Such were some of you, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justifying the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of God. And so what we can take from this passage is that this is that Paul the Apostle is talking about how homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God unless what they repent. Because in verse 11 it says, some were such some of you but you were washed. In other words, they repented for their sin of homosexuality and therefore they have been washed by the blood of Jesus Christ and were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. See, so the Bible does address homosexuality, it does condemn it Min, the issue of whether Jesus mentioned it directly is immaterial. What does the Bible say about it? And so it’s important that we look at the full breadth of scripture when we’re dealing with these questions. Alright, next one again. John frugal saying on M-S-N-B-C twisting scripture. Go ahead.

Video (18:51):

He commanded you to pay your taxes to welcome the stranger. Individuals and nations must care for the poor and sick. In Matthew 25, he who lives by the sword must die by the sword. Luke 22,

Mark Harrington (19:02):

Let’s focus in on what Jesus said. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Of course we find that in Matthew 26 verses 51 through 54. Let’s read it together. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached, and this is one of his disciples, likely reached and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to him, put your sword back into its place. By the way, they had swords. Why do they have swords to defend themselves? Jesus was not a pacifist. Friends, he believed in self-defense. For all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my father and he will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels? How then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way.

(19:59):

Now consider the context. Jesus is about to get arrested. One of his followers, possibly one of the disciples lops off the ear of the high priest. And Jesus says, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. In other words, he goes, he’s saying, we are not going to bring the kingdom to pass. Bring the kingdom of God through violence. And you’re standing in the way of what is ordained because he says at the end that it must happen this way. How then would the scriptures be fulfilled? That it must happen this way. Another Jesus is saying, this is all it has to happen this way. And you’re getting in the way you’re trying to about it through violence. He’s not condemning the use of force here at all. He’s not a pacifist because the disciples carried swords and they carried swords. Why? Because they, Jesus believed that they needed to defend themselves in certain cases. So anyway, again, we’re taking the words of Christ and we are extrapolating them well beyond what the scripture teaches as a whole. All right, last clip. John Fugal sang on m ms NBC. Go ahead.

Video (21:24):

There’s a reason why these right-wingers never try to

Mark Harrington (21:27):

Put right wingers, sermon

Video (21:28):

On the mount on walls in classrooms. Read the Bible. Wow.

Mark Harrington (21:33):

Well, first of all, the Bible can’t be put in the classroom

Video (21:36):

The next in Franciscan. And if you are there, you want to criminalize abortion and put people in jail because you’re so Christian when Jesus never mentioned abortion, but you support

Mark Harrington (21:46):

The penalty,

Video (21:47):

Which Christ actually opposed the rest of us. A lot of men wrote the book, but if you support

Mark Harrington (21:51):

The book, oh, there we go. A lot of men wrote the book like clapping seals. They’re cheering this guy on completely und discerning about what the scripture actually says. Again, he’s saying that Jesus opposed to death penalty. We know that’s not true. If you would go up, do you have the passage in John chapter eight? Let’s read that. I assume that he’s going and using this again, this interchange with the adulterous woman to say that Jesus was opposed to the death penalty. This is just an interaction with the adulterous woman. Let’s read it in chapter eight, verse one. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives and early in the morning he came again to the temple area and all the people were coming to him and he sat down and began teaching to them or teaching them. Now the scribes and the Pharisees, there they are wanting to trip him up, brought a woman caught in the active adultery, and after placing her in the center of the courtyard, they’re setting Christ up here, said to him, teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of committing adultery.

(23:10):

Now in the law of Moses in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. What then do you say? Now they were saying this to test him so that they might have grounds for accusing him. But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground. And when they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them, he was without sin among you. Let him be the first to cast, the first to throw a stone at her. And again, he stooped down and rode on the ground. And now when they heard this, they began leaving. Huh? Interesting one by one, beginning with the older ones, and he was left alone with the woman where she was in the center of the courtyard and straightening up. Jesus said to her woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? And she said, no one Lord.

(24:02):

And Jesus said, I do not condemn you either. Go from now on and do not sin any longer. So to take this passage as Jesus condemning the death penalty is a terrible application of scripture. Obviously Jesus is God and he is showing specific act of mercy to this woman and he’s exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, many of them who probably had slept with this woman themselves. So you can’t take this story and say, well, Jesus was against the death penalty again, within the entirety of scripture. We know that the death penalty is throughout. In fact, even in the New Testament in Romans 13 where it talks about the sword of the civil government, it executes justice. The Apostle Paul’s talking about the death penalty there. And the important phrase too at the end is he tells her to go and sin no more. So what she was involved in was sin, adultery.

(25:11):

He just at that point showed mercy to her. He was not condemning the death penalty. Alright, so that’s really all we have on John Fugal saying, I probably took more time than I needed to with this guy, but these are very common arguments. We hear these on college campuses. Sometimes you may hear them in the public square just debating or discussing Christianity with people here and there. And I hope maybe I brought a little bit of clarity to this because we often hear this, especially when we were dealing with the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

(25:47):

Alright, friends, we are in the heat of the 2024 presidential campaign and the candidates are lining up to debate each other in Iowa because the Iowa caucuses are on our doorstep here in the next several days. And so the candidates, the Republican candidates for president are out on the stump in Iowa making their case as to why they should be president of the United States. So I wanted to take a moment and deal with a couple comments that were put forward by a few of these candidates. The first one is Nikki Haley. I’m not a fan of Nikki Haley, just upfront, I think she’s a rhino that is a Republican in name only. She is running second currently to Donald Trump, probably only because she offers the rhino alternative, the mainstream alternative to President Trump and Ron DeSantis. But that said, she’s asked about this situation or this case in Texas with the woman by the name of Kate Cox who became pregnant. And there was fetal abnormality with her child. And supposedly, and again, I don’t know the story in depth, but she says that she could not have an abortion in Texas because abortion’s illegal. So she was going to be forced to go over the border of Texas to have an abortion. And that’s what apparently she did. The Supreme Court of Texas refused to allow for the abortion. And so that’s what happened is the national story. And so Nikki Haley has asked about it, go ahead and play that clip.

Video (27:32):

The court ruled earlier today that Kate Cox, who wants an abortion, cannot get. She’s 21 weeks pregnant. The reason why she was seeking was because her Venus has a fatal condition. Considering what you talked about on the trail about abortion being a personal decision, do you support the Texas Supreme Court not allowing Pea Cox to make that personal decision?

(27:50):

So first of all, I welcome the states that have become pro-life, but this is exactly why I’ve said you have to show compassionate, humanize the situation. We don’t want any women to sit there and deal with a rare situation and have to deliver a baby in that sort of circumstance any more than we want women getting an abortion at 37, 38, 39 weeks. We have to humanize this situation and deal with it. Compassion. I think that Texas is going to go back and have their health medical board look at this and say, how should we deal with this? I think every state’s going to do that. But at the end of the day, this is about how do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible.

Mark Harrington (28:35):

Well, there you go. I mean, it’s not a bad answer to the question. What I want to focus in on her use of the word humanize. She says, we need to humanize the situation. How about we humanize the situation by talking about the humans who are being killed by abortion? What she means when she says, I want to humanize the situation, is she wants to humanize the woman or the mother. Well, we know the mothers are human. We understand this tragic story in Texas. It’s awful. But the answer is not an abortion at 21 weeks. If there’s a tragic situation medically where the baby’s likely going to die, the answer is not dismembering the child. The answer is deliver the child at the appropriate time when it does not threaten the life of the mother, which it will not if you deliver the child by cesarean section, her life will not be at risk and allowing the normal process to which this child may live or die with the proper prenatal or prenatal care to take place. Not to dismember the baby, but I find it interesting that she uses, we need to humanize the situation. Well, you know how we humanize the situation. Let’s talk about the humans who are being killed and show them to the American people. Alright, here’s the next clip. This is Ron DeSantis who attacks President Trump on his pro-life record. Go ahead and play that clip.

Video (30:19):

Do you think Donald Trump is not pro-life?

(30:21):

Of course not. I mean, when you’re saying that pro-life protections are a terrible thing, by definition, you are not pro-life. When you say that you want to have a federal law at 18 weeks or 20 weeks, that would override a state like Iowa that is enacted pro-life protections. You never said that. That would mean more abortions, not less abortions, because very few abortions are happening that late anyways. So he has flip flopped on this issue. I don’t know if it’s because of political convenience or this is all where he always believed in. But here’s the thing, some issues are pretty fundamental. How do you flip flop on something like the sanctity of life?

Mark Harrington (31:00):

Yeah, well, I like Rhon DeSantis. I think Rhon DeSantis will make a good president and I will support the nominee of the Republican party for president, irrespective of who it is. But he’s wrong about President Trump when he says President Trump in the understanding of what pro-life is, which is we want abortion to be outlawed. President Trump is pro-life. Now, president Trump believes in so-called exceptions. A lot of us, including me, don’t. But keep in mind, this is the guy that put three justices on the US Supreme Court that reversed and overturned Roe versus Wade Ron pro-life. Now, he may disagree with you when it comes to the heartbeat law, he said, and this is the thing. So President Trump is pro-life in the understanding of what we believe pro-life to be. Now we can argue what that means within the pro-life movement, but he has been pro-life throughout his political career.

(32:06):

Number one, he says that President Trump says it would be a terrible thing to put restrictions on abortion. President Trump has not said that generally. He has said he thinks the prohibition on or the heartbeat laws are a terrible thing. I don’t agree with him. Of course, he thinks it’s too far go politically. That’s all he’s saying. When he says the heartbeat laws are a terrible thing, he just thinks politically they’re a terrible thing. In other words, they will prevent pro-life. Republicans from beginning elected. Now you can disagree with him on that. I do. And I think most pro-life activists do as well. But that’s just a political calculation. And then the final thing is that he opposes, I believe federal laws limiting abortion. And he says that these laws would outlaw restrictions in conservative states. That’s not true. Number one, there are efforts within the federal government, the Republicans in Congress, to try to pass a 15 week ban on abortion.

(33:15):

I think it’s a waste of time. You’re going to save very little unborn children that way. But the notion that they have, this is why they think they want to do this, is a 15 week ban on abortion will be a ceiling, a national ceiling, not a basement, not the lower level, and would at least restrict abortion in these blue states like California, New York, and Illinois that have absolutely no limits on abortion. So it’s a ceiling, a federal ceiling, a national ceiling. But that would not prohibit states like Iowa or any of these others from banning abortion at conception if they wish, because it doesn’t prohibit them from doing that. So he’s wrong on that. It would not supersede that is any federal action on abortion would not supersede state restrictions on abortion. All it is is a ceiling, a national ceiling. I’m not big on these.

(34:18):

I think it would be a waste of effort because it really saves few lives and likely won’t even make it through the Congress. But for the states like New York and California where abortion is legal up to birth, it may actually save some lives. So that’s what he’s talking about there. I think Ron DeSantis was wrong on President Trump. President Trump has been consistent throughout his political career. You may not agree with him when it comes to the exceptions, but he is a political animal friends and he wants to get elected. That’s what he’s doing. He’s making a calculation and yeah, we can disagree with him on that, but that’s who he is. And Rhon DeSantis should know that. Alright, so that’s my take on the political candidates. I know there’s going to be a debate coming up here soon in Iowa. I’ll be responding to some of that as well in future broadcasts and friends, it’s good to be back in 2024. We are locked and loaded and ready to go out into the culture and make a difference for Jesus Christ and sharing the truth about abortion in the public square. We’ll see you next time. God bless you. God bless America and remember America to bless God.

Outro (35:31):

You’ve been listening to Mark Harrington, your radio activist. For more information on how to make a difference, the cause of life, liberty and justice, go to created equal.org.org. To follow mark, go to Mark Harrington show.com. Be sure to tune in next time for your marching orders in the culture war.