Queerstianity: A group of people that supposedly push no political or religious agenda but “share” their philosophy of tolerance and love onto others.”
(Source: Urban Dictionary [slightly edited])
One of the reasons why we are monitoring the Hillsong Church is because of it’s ecumenical bullying. Hillsong has been pushing on Christianity various beliefs that oppose essential truths of the Christian faith. If you oppose their ecumenical love you are accused of being “critical” or “religious”.
The point of this series of articles is not to make this about what people think is the “Gay Issue”. The issue we are about to address is more important.
The problem is the “Christian Issue” and the Christian issue is this: we have Brian Houston of Hillsong Church operating as a spiritual fraud, claiming to represent the Christian faith in Australia and supposedly speak on behalf of God. We would like to make it very clear that Brian Houston is not a Christian. He disqualifies himself as a Christian and a pastor. Furthermore, he exposes himself again and again of being a false teacher and an enemy of Jesus.
He does not represent the Christian faith. In fact, we have exposed the fact he teaches a counterfeit faith to the Christian faith, a counterfeit gospel rather than the Christian gospel and a Jesus that is a counterfeit to the Christian Jesus. His beliefs are more in line with New Age/Occult/ Fascist paradigms than the Christian worldview.
Now Brian is grooming Christians in his movement to embrace the false “Gay Christian” doctrine. This is a VERY sensitive issue yet very black and white within the Christian world view. We are simply being obedient to God’s Word to expose the wickedness and deceit behind Brian Houston and other men’s push to redefine Christianity to suit their own selfish ambitions. There are some very good resources available that explain why it is a lie to embrace Gay Christianity.
We hope to add more resources over time.
White Horse Inn Radio covers this issue with sensitivity,
How can we discern between helpful and unhelpful ways to reach out to our non-Christian neighbors? More particularly, how should we deal with the thorny subject of homosexuality or interact with those in our lives who deal with same-sex attraction? To help us navigate these waters, in this edition of White Horse Inn we talk with Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. She describes her previous life as a “lesbian feminist professor” in recently published book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.
Fighting for the Faith hosting Chris Rosebrough examines the Gay Christianity controversy against the scriptures,
• Russell Moore, Al Mohler and Erin Benziger weigh in on the Louie Giglio controversy.
• A survey of the Biblical teaching on same sex sins.
Fighting for the Faith does another excellent rebuttal here,
• California Baptist Church Changes View on Homosexuality After Pastor’s Son Comes Out Gay
• Al Mohler Responds to the First Gay Affirming SBC Church.
• Debunking Matthew Vines’ Bible Twisting
• Sermon Review: Drift: Emotional Health by Youth Pastor Caleb of Narrate Church
Dividing Line Radio with Dr James White does an exceptional job covering this issue,
The complete response to Matthew Vines is now available as a single program. Yes its five hours and nine minutes long, (72meg in size), but the world needs to hear this message. We believe this so much that we have decided to make this publicly available to be distributed for free. Share it with your friends and relatives. We’ve titled it “Gay Christianity” Refuted and only ask that you not change it or sell it. All fair use rules apply for criticism too.
You can play it here or right click and download it. All that we ask is that if you are edified by it please consider supporting this work on a regular basis. There is more where that came from Lord willing.
“Gay Christianity” Refuted by James White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Based on a work at aomin.org.
Here is Dr Albert Mohler’s piece that is worth understanding:
There Is No ‘Third Way’ — Southern Baptists Face a Moment of Decision (and so will you)
Southern Baptists will be heading for Baltimore in just a few days, and the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention is to be held in a city that has not hosted the convention since 1940. This time, Baptists attending the meeting will face an issue that would not have been imaginable just a few years ago, much less in 1940 — a congregation that affirms same-sex relationships.
Just days before the convention, news broke that a congregation in suburban Los Angeles has decided to affirm same-sex sexuality and relationships. In an hour-long video posted on the Internet, Pastor Danny Cortez explains his personal change of mind and position on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. He also addressed the same issues in a letter posted at Patheos.com.
In the letter, Cortez describes a sunny day at the beach in August of 2013 when “I realized I no longer believed in the traditional teachings regarding homosexuality.”
Shortly thereafter, he told his 15-year-old son that he “no longer believed what he used to believe.” His son responded with an even more direct word to his father: “Dad, I’m gay.” As Cortez writes, “My heart skipped a beat and I turned towards him and we gave one another the biggest and longest hug as we cried. And all I could tell him was that I loved him so much and that I accepted him just as he is.”
According to the pastor, events then came rather quickly. On February 7, 2014, his son, Drew, posted a “coming out video” on YouTube. Two days later, the pastor told his church about his new position on the issue (also posted on the Internet). In his message to the New Heart Community Church congregation, Cortez admitted that his “new position” represented a “radical shift” that put him into conflict with both the position of the church and the convictions of the denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. He acknowledged that his change of heart on the issue of homosexuality put him at odds with the SBC’s confession of faith, theBaptist Faith & Message.
In his letter, the pastor said that his aim was to see the congregation “allow for grace in the midst of disagreement.” To his regret, he said, many in the church were not pleased and the church had to consider whether to terminate the pastor. After voting on March 9 to prolong the time of consideration and prayer, the church voted on May 18 not to dismiss the pastor and “to instead become a Third Way church.”
Cortez cited Vineyard pastor Ken Wilson’s book, released earlier this year,A Letter to My Congregation. Wilson, who serves a Vineyard church in Ann Arbor, Michigan, describes his book as “an evangelical pastor’s path to embracing people who are gay, lesbian, and transgender in the company of Jesus.” Wilson argues that, even as he has come to affirm same-sex behaviors and relationships, the issue need not divide congregations or Christians.
Pastor Cortez cited Wilson’s argument as foundational to the position he and his church are now taking — “agree to disagree and not cast judgment on one another.”
But, there is no third way. A church will either believe and teach that same-sex behaviors and relationships are sinful, or it will affirm them. Eventually, every congregation in America will make a public declaration of its position on this issue. It is just a matter of time (and for most churches, not much time) before every congregation in the nation faces this test.
The impossibility of a “third way” is made clear in Pastor Cortez’s own letter.
In one paragraph, he writes:
“So now, we will accept the LGBT community even though they may be in a relationship. We will choose to remain the body of Christ and not cast judgement. We will work towards graceful dialogue in the midst of theological differences. We see that this is possible in the same way that our church holds different positions on the issue of divorce and remarriage. In this issue we are able to not cast judgement in our disagreement.”
But in the very next paragraph, he writes:
“Unfortunately, many who voted to remain traditional will now separate from us in a couple of weeks. We are in the period of reconciliation and forgiveness. Please pray for us in this. Then on June 8, we will formally peacefully separate, restate our love for one another, and bless each other as we part ways. It has been a very tiring and difficult process.”
In two successive paragraphs the pastor refutes himself. His church is notgoing to take a middle ground. He states clearly that “we will accept the LGBT community even though they may be in a relationship.” And his church did not unanimously “agree to disagree,” for a significant portion of the church is leaving on June 8, just 48 hours before the Southern Baptist Convention convenes in Baltimore. Many “who voted to remain traditional” are now forced by conviction to leave the church.
Why? Because there is no “third way.” The New Heart Community Church has voted to “accept the LGBT community even though they may be in a relationship.” Even if it is claimed that some continuing members of the church are in disagreement with the new policy and position, they will be members of a church that operates under that new policy. At the very least, their decision to remain in the congregation is a decision to stay within a church that affirms same-sex behaviors and relationships. That is not a middle position. It is not a “third way.”
For some time now, it has been increasingly clear that every congregation in this nation will be forced to declare itself openly on this issue. That moment of decision and public declaration will come to every Christian believer, individually. There will be no place to hide, and no place safe from eventual interrogation. The question will be asked, an invitation will be extended, a matter of policy must be decided, and there will be no refuge.
There is no third way on this issue. Several years ago, I made that argument and was assailed by many on the left as being “reductionistically binary.” But, the issue is binary. A church will recognize same-sex relationships, or it will not. A congregation will teach a biblical position on the sinfulness of same-sex acts, or it will affirm same-sex behaviors as morally acceptable. Ministers will perform same-sex ceremonies, or they will not.
Interestingly, a recent point of agreement on this essential point has come from an unexpected source. Tony Jones, long known as a leader in the “emerging church” has written that there is no “third way” on same-sex marriage. As Jones notes, denominations may study the issue for some time, but eventually it will take a vote. At that point, it will either allow for same-sex marriage, or not.
In his words:
“And the same goes for an individual congregation. At some point, every congregation in America will decide either, YES, same-sex marriages will take place in our sanctuary, performed by our clergy; or NO, same-sex marriages will not take place in our sanctuary, performed by our clergy. There is no third way on that. A church either allows same-sex marriages, or it doesn’t.”
Tony Jones and I stand on opposite sides of this issue, but on the impossibility of a “third way” we are in absolute agreement. Conservative evangelicals have understood this for some time. It is interesting that those on the left now understand the issue in the same “binary” terms. There is no middle position.
Once again, Tony Jones gets right to the essential point:
“What I’m saying is that a church or an organization can study the issue in theory, and they can even do so for years. But this isn’t really a ‘third way’ or a ‘middle ground.’ Instead, it is a process. And at some point, that process has to end and practices have to be implemented. At that point, there’s no third way. You either affirm marriage equality in your practices, or you do not.”
Actually, as we have seen, Pastor Cortez makes the same point. The practice of his congregation is now to accept openly-gay members and members in openly-gay relationships. That does not allow for any middle ground, and that is why his church faces an exodus of members next Sunday.
Now, the Southern Baptist Convention also faces a moment of unavoidable decision. A church related to the Convention has officially adopted a gay-affirming position. The Baptist Faith & Message, the denomination’s confession of faith, states that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.”
Furthermore, the Convention’s constitution states explicitly that any congregation that endorses homosexual behavior is “not in cooperation with the Convention,” and thus excluded from its membership.
There is nothing but heartbreak in this situation. Here we face a church that has rejected the clear teachings of Scripture, the affirmations of its confession of faith, and two millennia of Christian moral wisdom and teaching. But the Convention also faces a test of its own resolve and convictional courage.
I am confident that the Southern Baptist Convention will act in accordance with its own convictions, confession of faith, and constitution when messengers to the Convention gather next week in Baltimore. But every single evangelical congregation, denomination, mission agency, school, and institution had better be ready to face the same challenge, for it will come quickly, and often from an unexpected source. Once it comes, there is no middle ground, and no “third way.”
Sooner or later — and probably sooner — the answer of every church and Christian will be either yes or no.
Apologist expert Walter Martin writes how Jesus did condemn homosexuality,
Jesus does condemn homosexuality
I first became interested in the issues of homosexuality in the early 1950′s when I was a graduate student at New York University centered in Greenwich Village in New York. It was in that particular area I came in contact with every conceivable kind of deviation from the norm, shall we say, and particularly there was a tremendous amount of homosexuality apparent out in the open, and even flaunted at that particular time.
Today [circa 1980], of course, we have gay lobbies, legislation being proposed for the benefit of the gay community; we have gay public relation departments, we have the phrase, “Gays of the World Unite,” and we have about us, on every side, the media quite obviously trying, or attempting, to give the gays—or the homosexuals—a fair shake. I don’t think you can honestly evaluate the problem and look squarely at it from the perspective of Biblical theology without being provoked in your thought processes and in your spiritual nature.
The 17th chapter of the Book of the Acts, the Apostle Paul in Athens, was provoked by the evil he saw about him. In that case it happened to be idolatry in which the whole city was given over to the worship of idols. Now had the Apostle not been provoked in his spirit and become angry, spiritually, at the evil—not the people—but the evil they were practicing and which held them in bondage, he would never have had an opportunity to go to the Areopagus, which was the court that heard public speakers and licensed them to talk in Athens.
And had he never debated in the marketplace, and made it a basic issue for everyday communication, he would never have had the opportunity to preach his message on Mars Hill. So what got him to Mars Hill and out [into] the marketplace where people could listen to him on the higher echelons of learning, and to penetrate and to permeate all other levels—as a result—was the fact that within himself he was provoked at the presence of evil.
And I think the Christian Church has to be provoked, always, at the presence of evil. The great sin of the church today, and there are a number, is that we are apathetic, lethargic—happy to go along with the tide—and courageous when it doesn’t cost us something. And because of that, today we have a whole community of individuals for whom Jesus Christ died—the gay community—and they’re not being ministered to, they’re not being penetrated, they’re not being successfully evangelized.
And because the church will not move forward, [it] has become essentially impotent in the area because it doesn’t want to “get involved.” Evangelical Christianity has drawn back from the conflict, liberal Christianity has plunged into it; not with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the soul, but attempting to find some rationale for the permission of the acts—which of course is and scholastic, theological, and historical madness.
Now there are people who say, “Well, there are convincing arguments put forward by homosexuals who are good theologians.” There is no good theological theologian; and the reason why there isn’t any good homosexual theologian is, to adopt the position, you must vitiate Biblical revelation. And this is something nobody wants to face. I am vigorously opposed to the prostitution of Holy Scripture in defense of what God has considered one of the most vile of all acts.
Now that’s just plain Biblical revelation that has to be faced. And someone will say, “Well, that’s a very hard line.” It’s mitigated by God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah before He destroyed [them]. Let us no forget that before the Lord rained fire and sulfur on Sodom that He first was willing to spare the city. That He first loved enough—despite the evil—to say, “Find 50, find 10, find 5, who were justified and I’ll spare it.”
It was not an arbitrary, capricious, annihilation of a city; it was the result of cosmic judgment because love was rejected, judgment ensues. Now, there are those who take a very hard line on homosexuality; and when they take too hard a line, they forget that the homosexual is a victim of sin. What is sin? It is defined for us as transgression of the Law; and all unrighteousness is sin. Now if we accept that, the next question which must follow logically is: What saith the Law?
For if sin is unrighteousness, and all unrighteousness is sin—and sin is described in the context of the Law—you would automatically have to go to the Law to find out what it was. That’s if you know anything about exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics, you’d have to do it. And immediately when you go to the Torah you find God saying, “Cursed is any man that lies with a man as with woman.” I don’t even think that needs interpretation.
I don’t think it needs blackboard diagram; or any amount of sophisticated logical presentation a fortiori. I think you can be a fifth-grader and understand that if God says “cursed” is something He takes an extremely dim view of it. I think that’s a rational approach. So the homosexual theologians who are attempting today to defend homosexuality on the basis of Biblical theology are in the same position as the Sadducees, to whom Jesus addressed this remark: “You do err. Not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.”
That’s exactly where they are. They are trying to put Christianity and homosexuality in the same bed; and you’re not gonna do it because Jesus Christ very forcibly condemned it. And you say, “Where in the New Testament did Jesus ever mention homosexuality?” Open your Bibles and find out; because contrary to what the gay church says, He not only spoke against it—He went out of His way to make it very clear [so] nobody’d misunderstand Him.
Of course, you do have to study your Greek New Testament to come up with it. Most homosexual theologians, so-called, that I have talked to don’t even know the Greek alphabet, much less their Greek exegesis so they miss it completely—but it’s here in the passage and it should be looked at. Matthew, chapter 15, Christ is speaking, verse 19, “For out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders,” notice the differentiation, “adulteries, fornications,” plural, “thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”
“These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” “The word homosexual is not there; what are you arguing about?” I’m arguing about the use of the word porneus, which was found written over the wall, and the doorway, and the arches, in excavations [by] archaeologists of Roman brothels. And the word porneus did not mean “sex before marriage” alone.
It meant homosexuality, bestiality, and all forms of degraded sex. And it became well known to everybody in the culture, if any of them ever did their homework, that porneus referred to anything goes. Jesus well knew the Roman brothels. He well knew the culture of His time; and when He said adulteries and fornications—plural—He was making a direct reference to the practices of the Romans and the Greeks and the pagans of the time who prostituted themselves to all forms of evil.
He knew it; He condemned it. It’s not just the matter of the word, it’s a matter of the culture; and Jesus certainly understood the culture of His time—if He didn’t, nobody did. And therefore, when He used the word fornications, He obviously was making reference to all forms—all forms, inclusive forms—of that which was the deviation from the norm of Jewish law.
And the reason I can say that with such dogmatism is because He was a rabbi. And if a rabbi didn’t know Jewish law on the subject of homosexuality, nobody on earth knew it. Jesus was a rabbi; a master of the Law. In fact, He was the only person that could ever say to a man on the Sabbath day, “Take up your bed and go home.” And when He was questioned on it He responded in John, chapter 5, that He could loose the Law of the Sabbath any time He wanted to for the Son of Man was Yahveh of the Sabbath.
Which meant He could do whatever He wanted with His Own Law because it was His. I do think that we have forgotten the fact that universe belongs to Somebody else; that this creation was ordained by Somebody Who had a specific plan in mind. He did not make Adam 1 and Adam 2. He made Adam and Eve. Now if He wanted to have the “gift” of homosexuality bestowed upon His creation, I feel He would have bent over backwards to explain to us that homosexual love was perfectly acceptable, as was heterosexual love.
And we would have had more partners in the Garden; but we don’t have more partners in the Garden, because what the Creator designed as natural, He says is natural. Not us, He says it’s natural. Now our homosexual revisionist theologians say that [homosexuality] is a gift from God. No, it’s a gift from Satan; because it is sin, and is a transgression of what God says, not obedience.
Who is the first transgressor; the liar and the murderer from the beginning. Who first broke the Law? Satan. Who first disrupted the natural order of heaven; which was the love of God and fellowship with Him. Satan. Who penetrated creation and destroyed… Satan. Who penetrated the Garden and led [Adam and Eve] astray; “You will not die, you will become gods.” Satan.
Who has always deviated from the norm of divine revelation? Satan. And who today is trying to put Christ and homosexuality together? Satan. And it’s against this that the church must stand. There is a basic theological issue that must not be debated; it just simply must be affirmed. Jesus condemned all unnatural sexual practices. And that definition would come under the Law, which He Himself gave.
It was Christ Who gave Moses the Law on Sinai. If you don’t know that, you don’t even know the rudiments of Biblical theology; because in the 3rd chapter of Exodus, the Voice that spoke from the burning bush said, “AhYah Asher AhYah, I Am That I Am.” And Jesus Christ, to the Jews in John chapter 8—verse 58 said, “AhYah; I Am the eternal God.” The minute He said that, they reach for rocks.
They didn’t need any diagrams, they knew Who He said He was… Now I think, therefore, the bedrock position must be established; theologically, there is no room for homosexuality inthe revelation of God. There isn’t room, really, for it to be debated seriously. It simply has to faced for what it is; the practice is condemned by a divine curse.
Source: http://apprising.org/2011/03/21/jesus-does-condemn-homosexuality/, Published 21/03/2011. (Accessed 06/06/2014.)