This is where I’m very sympathetic to Calvinism: I once asked myself whether I’ve managed to avoid many things I condemn merely due to lack of opportunity or fear of retribution or a good upbringing and circumstances. Thus, I can hardly look at the thief and say “I am better than he.” I don’t know that.

I agree with your assessment, James. But again, we don’t battle this prejudice by apologizing for ‘what we’re against’. Think about why such a large newspaper, AJC, which is a very liberal publication (not in politics, but in a general worldview), would print such an article. It’s because the message is essentially shocking: a pastor is apologizing, at least in some measure, for being against homosexuality. Also, this would never make the news if it wasn’t coming from a Southern Baptist Pastor –in that the SBC has built a reputation of sorts for speaking out against such things. So the message being communicated, whether the pastor means this or not, is that Christianity is wrong, at least in some measure, for being against those things, and this pastor’s apology is a small step in welcoming in these people.

I wonder if we could find any examples in scripture of Jesus or the Apostles apologizing for things that are clearly proclaimed in scripture?

Hopefully my point didn’t get lost, which was why I quoted the article: the gospel message should offend the lost otherwise we’re probably not proclaiming the right message; our lives, on the other hand, should draw in the lost and make them love and respect us, in a certain respect. I just hope that in the full context, Dr. Lee was apologizing for lives and not for messages.

Anna wrote: Did Jesus apologize to the sinner for they way in which they were treated? Yes.

Really? Where did he do that?

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” - Matt 23:3

Interesting, although these men were the ones who would treat those sinful people with the disrespect that Richard Lee is referring to above, Jesus didn’t come close to apologizing, but rather affirmed their message apart from their actions.

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Join us for Easter Sunday - Breaking Free, the real Easter Story. The Family Church is a safe place. You will be among real people, people who don’t know it all or have it all figured out. We are a diverse people with different backgrounds through economics, politics, and even religion; but we are similar in the fact that we have been prisoners of our past, enslaved in destructive habits. God came to set us free. He has broken the chains and set the captives free. That’s what Easter is all about. Breaking Free.

I found this curious. Because is makes the Gospel to be something quite foreign to what Scripture says is the purpose of the passion. Then there was this:

We all have concerns about our lives and about who we’re becoming? iLife is a series, that focuses on who the Bible says we are to “BE” rather than what we are to “DO”. iLife is about becoming the person you’ve always wanted to be. Start the year off right, join us each week in January for iLife.

And that kinda cements the Easter announcement not really being about Jesus, but being about having “Your Best Life Now.” For worse, it appears to introduce an existential idealism common among the Postmondern chruch.
Only knowing this much, one can put the OSTEEN STAMP OF APPROVAL on it. But, one couldn’t possibly commend a well done my good and faithful servant.

As to the aspect of “apologizing” for attitudes and actions of the Church, is he apologizing for what he and his church has done? Or, is he apologizing for others? You see, I have not done what he is accusing many like myself of doing. We, have nothing to apologize for. And, it presumes to speak for some who are not sorry in the least. I find this offensive both in the accusation and the presuming attitude. We have seen this kind of schmoozing apology from people like the Pope and it does not set well even with those to whom it is directed. Quite the contrary, it is viewed as politcal speech and is more representative of one with crooked speech, who winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, while he points with his finger; the target audience understands the gesture as insincere placation.

“Why is the gospel of love dividing America? The unchurched world views us as judgmental and homophobic,” says Lee. “I don’t think God is going to ask what label we wore. He’s going to ask what did we do for Jesus.”

I point you back to the iLife advertisement above. The statements are glaring contradiction. And this statement out the AJC article has a near verbatim quote from PDL,; this is a Warrenism, filled with a works based salvation message. Questions need to be asked about what is meant by the unchurched. Does he mean believers who are in sin by either refusing to commit to a local body or having abandoned a committment, or does he mean unbelievers, in which case they are not unchurched, they have never been churched? In the first case we have to be even more judgemental as is required by discipleship (church discipline) and in the second case we must be clear that the behavior is sin and under the judgement of God. Then of course what is the “Gospel of love”? The true Gospel does divide: Matthew 10:34-39. The true Gospel does love, it loves enough to condemn sin and offer salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. So, yes it does matter what label we wear, unlike this line: “I don’t think God is going to ask what label we wore.” Again, this is a near quote and it could either be Osteen, or Warren or any of a number of emergent types today in any one of a thousand diverse seeker friendly organizations who compromise the Gospel for the sake of numbers and pop attraction.

I do not know all that this oranization or its leaders teach, but just based upon what is demonstrated here, this should be a wake up call to the SBC. Now, many jump on the bandwagon of discontent with the idea that Calvinists are being graduated from Southern, but, where is the hew and cry about pomos?

What point are you trying to make by quoting that passage?

Exactly so. That’s precisely what I was getting at.

Well said. I’m waiting for the sermon to get posted, since I’m very curious to hear what Dr. Lee actually said. At the moment, I suspect that he did far more than “apologize”; we’ll see.

And I found it highly ironic that James posted that reference to Luke 18. Because after reading some of Dr. Lee’s comments in that article, the first thought that entered my mind was, “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax coll–err, I mean, homophobe.”

Luke 18 could be used to condemn both groups, you’re right. The interesting thing about quoting Luke 18 is that little fact that the sinner fell on his face before his Lord understanding his depravity. But, isn’t it that very fact that seems to be at issue; that it is not just the sin, but the sinner who is under condemnation. It is not the sin that needs to repent but the sinner. And, how will they do that except they are condemned through the preaching of the word by showing them that it is they who will suffer eternal damnation except they repent? This is what confuses me with the love the sinner hate the sin ethic. The two are inextricably connected except by the grace that is offered throught Christ. We dare not find ourselves at fault for not telling them of the threat of condemnation. We would then share in their sin and in effect over throw the commandments. And that is a millstone too heavy to bear.

Good comments. Thanks for sharing your clear thinking on this issue.

Then, too, the preaching of the truth, and the whole truth, will bring a power of union among you, so that you who love the Lord will he heartily united. When Christian people quarrel, it is generally because they do not get sufficient spiritual food. Dogs fight when there are no bones, and church-members fall out when there is no spiritual food. We must give them plenty of gospel; for the gospel has the power of sweetening the temper, and making us put up with one another.

Check out this post of a sermon by Spurgeon. How appropriate, especially remembering the “industrial age” in which he lived.

Things seem to be going in circles here. With prior apologies to Nathan, I’m going to reproduce his last paragraph in its entirety (emphasis added):

Let your actions and conduct cause unbelievers to love you, respect you, and draw themselves to you; but the message of the cross should cut them to the quick, so that those who reject our Lord hate you and everything you stand for. If unbelievers are not offended by your message, then most likely you’ve given them something besides the gospel.

Now then: “Amen”? Or “Oh me”?

was a surprise to Pastor Lee.

Okay, but it shouldn’t have been, should it? This same or similar thing has been reported as being done many times. It still remains outstanding that the attitude is not universal. Though it may be particular to Lee’s congregation, to say it of others, well, is that not picking up stones to throw?

judgemental and self-righteous. I think that is something we all have been guilty of, and we need to admit it

And, who doesn’t? Haven’t you? And if you have, as was mentioned by threegirldad above, isn’t a statement like this a little like saying “I’m glad I am not like that ______.

I have yet to get to the place where my hands are clean enough for me to pick up a stone to throw

But isn’t that what you have just done? A small stone, but a stone nonetheless. Have you removed the log? And if you have, have you followed the rest of the verse and seeing clearly removed splinter? You see, that takes judgement. Now, Scripture is clear that we must discern and declare good and evil. We are to judge with right judgement concerning all things. The issue really is not that we are judgemental, but just what it means to be judgemental. Unfortunately the definition is muddied by the same media, and the cloudy understanding of the church’s responsibility to discipline. Condemning homosexuality is required of us. How we do that will define whether we are being judgemental without sin.

Perhaps the media picked up on this because it is an attitude that is long overdue.

Again, long over due by whom? And, since when do we bow to the judgement of unbelievers? Is that what we are doing now, going to the law and that before unbelievers?

The world knows that an apology is due, and we are so slow to “get it.” I’m glad to see that this pastor gets it.

Hmm… Seems rather judgemental. Subjecting as you do the mental ability and spirituality of others to the measure of yourself. Does the world know that an apology is due Christ? Are they ready for a give and take. Let them bow the knee to Jesus. “We” have nothing to apologize for, not even the Crusades, nor any act by individuals who have coopted the Name to excuse their sin. I was not involved in slavery, bigotry against race nor sexual orientation, it was not I who burned witches, nor was it I or my family, nor my church that was involved in any of the plethora of things for which the media and the world expects that “we” should offer an apology. It is “THEY” who just do not get it. And if the message of salvation was clearly presented instead of the “seeker friendly” self-inprovement gospel, et al, the world would not confuse without guilt the Gospel churches with those who have compromised it.

If this pastor got it at all, he would dump the cant his church offers and return to the old paths.

But, thanks for your confirmation. For you understand that Lee has taken it down a road that it should never have gone as is evident by your own appraisal.

What is authentic? There is no authenticity in apologizing for others, is there?

http://www.sugarhillspace.com/apology_mp3/#

I am a former member of this church but left a few years prior to Pastor Lee arriving. However, I did visit the church a few times about three years ago and, although we had many friends there that would have made it an easy move, we decided we could not stay. The first message (and I am purposely using the word message in place of sermon) began with a Disney video clip from Beauty and The Beast. It was the song “be our guest, be our guest, put our service to the test.” The entire message was based on the premise that “the most important person in your life next to your relationship with God is the visitor sitting next to you.” Although I believe he has a passion for the lost, I found the entire message almost completely void of scripture and patently unbiblical. Whatever happened to “especially those of the household of faith”? The modern church truly has lost sight of it’s greatest evangelistic tool. Namely, loving ONE ANOTHER with such passion that those in the world who truly are being stirred toward the things of God say WOW!. Instead we so busy ourselves with so many gimmicky church programs that true, spontaneous fellowship has to take a back seat.

When I received the e-mail invitation to this service (Richard Lee added me to the e-mail list a few years back), I immediately noticed two things. Richard said that 85% of the people in our community are unchurched and they had “good reason” to be. I shuttered at this statement because you will never see any such excuse in scripture. This goes way beyond the boundaries of God’s word. Whatever happened to the gospel being “a stench to those who were perishing” and the narrow gate being so hard that “few are they that enter in”?

BTW, this is not the first time he has done this. A few years ago I recieved a postcard invitation that was intended for those who do not attend church because of “church people”. Once again the message was given that they stayed home for good reason, but then boldly proclaimed that they should try The Family Church because they are not one of “those churches”. I could not believe what I was reading. At the time this just seemed like such arrogance to me.

The second thing that caught my eye in this current invitation was how he immediately discredited anyone who would disagree with him by suggesting they were “religious folk” who would “stone him like they stoned Stephen.” My first thought was “one of the oldest pulpit manipulation tricks in the business. Demonize those who disagree with you before they have a chance to speak.”

I did listen to the message and found myself agreeing with several points, but disagreed with how he framed the whole message. Good grief, when David confessed his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed he repented and said “against You oh Lord, and You alone have I sinned.”

I also found his first confession very alarming. He confessed to the sin of “loving his church more than the community.” I don’t get that one. Scripture is filled with references showing that even God has a special love for His children. We are to love all men, but “ESPECIALLY the household of faith.”

After carefully listening to and relistening to several points, I don’t think this was nearly as controversial as it was played up to be in the media. I’m sure the professor from Princeton didn’t hear what he wanted to hear. There is no doubt in my mind that the media did not get what they wanted. He affirmed the authority of scripture along with what the bible says about homosexuality in Roman’s 1. (However, I don’t recall him having really articulated what it said. I’ll have to listen again).

I’m hoping to get a chance to talk to Richard and go into more detail about my concerns. I do think he is genuinely discouraged by the lack of genuine love in the church, but aren’t we all? He also alluded to his disappointment that the growth in his church hasn’t come from new converts generated by the witness of his people. I think that was a heartfelt concern. I just think the way that he articulated his disappointment was unbiblical, dangerous and potentially more damaging to the community than it is helpful.

Jesus talked to the woman at the well, not caring what the religious crowd thought. And she probably didn’t hate Him, she responded to His love for her! He ate with sinners, risking ruining his ‘good baptist reputation,’ but they didn’t invite Him home with them because they hated Him, I think they saw love in His eyes.

I specifically said that those who reject the message will hate you because of the message, not because of their lives. Of course, the women at the well did not reject the message, for she was born again by the Spirit of God and her eyes were opened to the truth.

More specifically, telling someone that they’re a sinner headed for the wrath of a holy God, that all other ways and self-righteousness is worth nothing, that the cross is the only way, that to self-denial and losing your life for the gospel is the call of Jesus, will not win you friends in this age. Instead, people know how offensive the gospel is, so that do what? They apologize. They dumb it down. They peddle it as if it’s cool, as if you really have an option whether to accept it or not. Etc.

So my point is that when repentance and faith in Christ are fully preached, with the backing of the law, and pressed upon a sinner with fervency, they won’t stick around long no matter how loving you are to them –which we’re of course commanded to be.