“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt,” the saying goes. But, critics may note, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) might have registered a historical first: proving foolishness by keeping one’s mouth shut.
At issue is a Wednesday floor speech in which the far-left Lieu cited two articles about recent anti-sexual devolutionary GOP legislation that, as the mainstream media put it, affects “LGBTQ+” affairs.
“Both articles cover controversial measures like Florida’s so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ [read: parental rights] bill and others that seek to restrict topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity from school library collections, classroom discussions and curriculum,” reports People.
‘‘’I just thought I would now recite for you what Jesus Christ said about homosexuality,’ Lieu told fellow members of Congress while cameras rolled at the U.S. Capitol,” the magazine continues.
“Lieu then remained silent for about 20 seconds before saying, ‘I yield back,’ ending his speech” (video below).
Mainstream media fancied this oh-so clever, with some saying that he “schooled” Republicans. But is this true? Or, as an MSN commenter put it, did Lieu via his silence merely express “what he knows about Jesus and the [B]ible”?
First note that if a Republican cited Jesus to promote a policy position, the Lieu crew would scream “Separation of church and state!” (even though it’s not in the Constitution). Perhaps implicit in Lieu’s appeal, however, is the recognition that all just law has a basis in what we call “religion” (click here for an explanation).
This said, Jesus’ “silence” is not at all like Lieu’s. As the theology-oriented blog Stand to Reason wrote in 2019:
What can we properly conclude from that fact that the record is silent about Jesus’ view on homosexuality? The answer is simple. Nothing. Nothing at all.
There are actually two flaws in this approach. Here’s the first. There is a difference between the record being silent about Jesus’ opinion on something and Jesus being silent about it. Remember, the vast majority of what Jesus said and did was left out of the Gospels. Not enough room, as John himself admits (Jn. 21:25).
Is the silence significant? Think about it. The record is also silent on Jesus’ view of slavery, capital punishment, spousal abuse, sex trafficking, racism, child abuse, and gay bashing, to name a few. Do we infer from this “silence” that He approved of these things?
For that matter, Jesus also never said anything about pedophilia. Does Lieu think this means He would’ve had no problem with NAMbLA?
Theologian Edward D. Andrews also addressed this issue, at his Christian Publishing House Blog, writing:
Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexuality. However, by extension, he did explicitly rule out homosexuality, when he mentioned the Creation account that says marriage is between one man and one woman for life. (Matt. 19:3–12; Mark 10:2–12) Jesus did not have to address the subject of homosexuality head-on because Jesus, his disciples, and his audience were Jewish, all being under the Mosaic Law until the ransom sacrifice of Pentecost. Jesus did not accept a polygamous marriage that was permitted during the Old Testament period…. Jesus did not accept divorce or homosexuality. Paul, on the other hand, had Gentiles in majority Jewish-Christian congregations and congregations that were predominately Gentile. Therefore, Paul had to be more explicit in what he had to say. Below we will have an excursion into the historical setting that the apostles would have had to deal with, which Jesus did not have to consider when it came to his audience. If you want to see a perfect example of how Jesus spoke of a subject based on his audience and Paul spoke differently based on his audience, see the article, WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE AMONG CHRISTIANS?
Put simply, Jesus had to mention to his disciples that homosexual behavior was wrong no more than he had to tell them human sacrifice was; these things were understood, taken for granted, and beyond debate.
What’s more, remembering that the Old Testament explicitly prohibits homosexual behavior, Congressman Lieu should note that his faith (he claims to be a practicing Catholic) teaches two things relevant here:
- The Bible, including the Old Testament, is divinely inspired.
- Jesus is God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity.
Jesus alluded to the latter himself, saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:7-9), “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30), and “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).
In other words, Jesus was stating that He is the same God who spoke to Moses — the great I AM. He is the God of the Old Testament and, therefore, its teachings are His handiwork.
Of course, this may not cut any ice with Lieu. He’s the guy, after all, who responded to certain Catholic bishops’ threat to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians with the following tweet:
That’s quite the defiant spirit, Mr. Lieu, perhaps the result of receiving indoctrination in lieu of an education. Whatever the case, lawyer Lieu may find that in the hereafter, neither dares nor invoking a right to remain silent will help his case.
