QUESTION:

Reading the apologetics of Justin reminds me of our modern day defense against persecution. Wednesday night Joel Osteen was on “Piers Morgan Tonight” and when asked if homosexuality was a sin he said yes. Now he is being labeled as judgmental (by Morgan). Osteen’s answer was a biblically based assessment regarding homosexuality. He said, “The scriptures show that it's [homosexuality] a sin.” I do not read his books, or watch his show and honestly I am not a fan of Osteen’s. However, it is hypocritical of the bleeding-heart, left-wing media to condemn Osteen for giving his own evaluation of the topic in question. Osteen did point out there are “other sins” in the bible; why is this the only one ever engaged by the media. I believe Piers Morgan did not care about Osteen’s stance on homosexuality, or any other sin; he wanted to make Osteen look like a bigot. Do you think it is judgmental to think someone is judgmental because their answer is not what you wanted to hear?

ANSWER:

You make a very good point and it appears you have already implicitly answered your own question which is that Morgan is as judgmental as Osteen as he judges Osteen but does not realize it, or at least he does not refer to it. This interview, however, reminded me of the religious leaders asking Jesus questions for the sole purpose of trying to trap Him.

In other words, Morgan had Osteen trapped when he asked him whether homosexuality was a sin. If Joel answered, “No it is not a sin,” he would have been considered anti-Bible and would have offended the modern day religious establishment. (Romans 1:27, NASB) But if Osteen answers “Yes, it is a sin,” then he is considered judgmental, also against many verses in the Bible, (Romans 2:1, NASB) and would be construed a bigot by the news media.

Jesus, the Great Apologist, deeply understood both the religious and pagan culture he lived in, and accordingly, responded differently than Osteen.  Jesus was metaphorically asked the exact same question as Osteen by the Pharisees. They asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to give a poll tax to Caesar, or not?” If Jesus says, “Yes, it is lawful to pay the poll-tax,” he would be authorizing paying tribute to a king other than God and would have offended the religious Jews of the day. However, if Jesus says, “It is not lawful to pay the poll-tax,” then the Pharisees could report him to the Roman government officials.  Jesus, instead, responded by asking why the Pharisees were testing him and ultimately responded by saying, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and render to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:15-22, NASB)

Osteen could have responded as Jesus did. When Osteen was asked if homosexuality was a sin he could have responded by asking Morgan why he was trying to trap him, of course this would have confused Morgan and given Osteen a chance to explain that Morgan’s question is based on the wrong premise. (Matthew 22:18, NASB) Furthermore, Osteen could have explained to Morgan that there is no reason to judge his brother Elton John or regard him with contempt by quoting Scripture. (Romans 14:10, NASB) Olsteen also could have mentioned that the bible says to “not judge one another anymore” (Romans 14:13, NASB) and refused to answer Morgan’s question at the risk of judging and, thus, violating Scripture himself. Finally, in a direct response to the homosexuality question Osteen could have said, “My interpretation of homosexuality as a sin for my life has no relevancy as to whether a homosexual determines it to be sin for his life,” in other words, render homosexuals to God’s judgment of sin, not mine. (Matthew 22:21)

Regardless, the actual response of Jesus and the hypothetical response of Osteen will likely still be offensive to the segment of the religious establishment more concerned with judging than evangelizing the irreligious. But that is a conversation for another day.