Denial precludes honour.

No response which denies that a thing exists is honouring to that thing. Indeed, the most necessary part of honour is admittance; if I will not admit something, then I do not honour it.

It may be that someone honours the belief that someone else has in something, but that action does not honour the thing denied but the belief of others.

It may be that someone honours the concept of something apart from its factuality; but the concept of something is not the thing itself.

It may be that someone honours a thing for the value of supposing it exists; but again, the thing has been removed and it is just a concept that remains.

Thus: nobody honours Christ who denies that he is the Son of God, who – as historical objective fact – took on human flesh, suffered and died for our sins, was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, and will return to judge both the living and the dead.

No honour is given to Christ by anyone who denies this; for that which they seek to honour is but abstract concept. Indeed, in so denying Christ, they have already delivered him the greatest dishonour.

The Gospel of John (3:16-18) speaks directly to this – saying:

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Here we see the factuality of the incarnation and work of Christ to save the world set out; and every response divided into two categories. The first category those who believe in him, and the second those who do not. Of those who do not – those who deny him, God declares that they are condemned already for this denial. There is no category for those who deny the the historical factual Christ described here but supposedly honour him by their lives, actions, prayers, or anything else. Whoever does not believe is condemned already.

But surely I am being too harsh? Aren’t deeds more important than creeds? Isn’t it love in your heart and in your hands that matters most?

What does God say? In 1 Corinthians 15, we find a very similar question addressed – the factuality of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection life to come. I’ll quote verses 17-19, and 32b – please do read the full chapter yourself:

¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
³² … If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Here the Apostle, without flinching, declares that faith apart from the factual historical resurrection of Christ is futile and of no effect. Nobody can be saved unless Christ was actually and factually raised from the dead. Indeed, the conclusion in verse 32 is that it is only because of the factuality of this that the Christian life is even relevant. If the dead are not raised, then it doesn’t matter: God tells us by the Apostle Paul that if Christ did not actually die for us and was not actually raised from the dead, then the best way to live your life would be to party as much as possible.

Because of this, we should not be encouraged by ‘honour’ or ‘respect’ supposedly shown to Christ, the Bible or the Christian faith by leaders or even pastors so long as they fail to affirm belief in the actual, factual, and objective work of Christ (and not just some concept of Christ). If a person talks about the marvellous moral impact of Christianity, the humbling example of the Gospel narratives, the inspiration they get from the story of God becoming an baby in a lowly stable – or any such like, but treats its factuality as optional or doubtful, what they are actually saying is that Christ doesn’t matter. Truly, if someone holds objective and historical factuality as optional, they necessarily hold that God did not need to give his only Son to save the world. Obtaining the benefits of Christ’s death, according to anyone who denies its truthfulness, did not require Christ to die.

Denial precludes honour: if the objective historical factuality of Christ and his person and Work is denied, nothing else said or done regarding Christ honours him. Whatever is being honoured, respected, or responded to – it is not Christ – but an idolatrous invention of man to take his place.