The unchurched world views us as judgmental and homophobic
Mar 28th, 2008 by Nathan White
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution today, a graduate of Southern Seminary and pastor of Sugar Hill Baptist Church in Gwinnett, GA, apologizes to those condemned by Christians:
Just as the Christian church has done many wonderful things throughout history, says the Rev. Richard Mark Lee, it also has done many terrible things, such as targeting, judging and condemning various individuals and groups.
On Sunday, Lee plans to apologize for these past wrongs in a sermon at his church, Sugar Hill Baptist, known as The Family Church. Some of the groups Lee said he’ll apologize to include gays, women seeking abortions and couples who live together outside of marriage.
“For too long, we’re been known for the issues we’re against, not for the God we’re for,” said Lee, 38.
Lee makes it clear he’s not speaking for, or against, the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, to which his church belongs. He doesn’t know if there will be some fallout from his sermon.
One religious scholar is heartened by the gesture.
“If this is an evangelical church with roots in the Southern Baptist Convention, this is a bold and distinctive move, and one that I would honor and respect,” said Tom Ogletree, professor of theological ethics at Yale Divinity School.
The “bumpersticker mentality” that seems to govern how people identify themselves clearly isn’t benefiting anyone, said Lee, who has led the church for seven years and has a doctorate from the Southern Baptist Theological Convention in Louisville, Ky.
Some people in the Christian church are more interested in promoting their political and personal interests than their Christian values, he said.
Some churchgoers have condemned gay people, picketed abortion clinics or ignored the poor and homeless, Lee said. If Jesus were alive today, he would minister to these groups, Lee says.
“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.”
Hoschton resident Jimmy Wilson has been attending the Family Church with his wife Diane for five years. He says he’s not surprised his pastor would tackle such a difficult topic as apologizing.
“His message is it’s not about us, it’s about God,” Wilson says. “We need to be changing lives, and that’s what our church’s ministry is about. It’s about reaching out to other people.”
Without delving into the subject in great detail, it appears to me that Mr. Richard Mark Lee has missed the point, even though his intentions may very well be good. Do we ever see Jesus or the Apostles apologizing for the message? Yes, I can see apologizing for the attitudes; and I agree with Mr. Lee in that the legalistic, Pharisaical, right-wing militancy has robbed the gospel of its power in this land. But apologizing for being known for ‘what we’re against’? How else is the lost world going to view the standards set forth in scripture that we are commanded to proclaim?
Christians are to be a light in this dark world. We are to adorn the gospel with our lives, walking worthy of the gospel by which we have been saved. Our lives, by our love, humility, service, kindness, generosity, peace, self-control, etc., should cause the lost world to love us and respect us. But our message, the message of the cross that demands repentance; the message that is a pleasing aroma of life and death in the nostrils of God; the message that demands complete self-denial and complete submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ; indeed, the message that is proclaimed as the only way, the only truth, and the only life, should and will cause the lost world to absolutely hate us.
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.
I think what he was saying is that the Church often does not approach the unbeliever with an awareness and knowledge of their own sins. It’s almost as if they’ve been saved from a “10 sins or less” life so they therefore can pass judgment on the rest of humanity with relative ease. This is frequently the case with gays and lesbians who are the object of this type of scorn: I’ve heard of many Christians who oppose any legal protections for them whatsoever, never mind marriage. I know of one Christian gentleman who stated they should be “gathered up and shot”.
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.
Ah you heard it here first, James is very sympathetic to Calvinism
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?
Per your own admission the AJC is a “very liberal publication” - so it’s important to make sure you take time to hear the other 51 weeks worth of teaching and preaching that take place in a year to hear the full heart of Dr. Lee (Richard - not Mark BTW).
As for “his” apology… the true apology is for the treatment of sinners - not the sin. You should know that Dr. Lee’s training comes from Liberty University (a long-time leader in addressing social sins).
Did the apostles apologize for their stances? No. Did Jesus apologize to the sinner for they way in which they were treated? Yes.
What was originally a heartfelt message to Sugar Hill/Buford/and NE Atlanta has now become something bigger that perhaps God will use for His glory and reconciliation.
Praise God for leaders who are willing to admit when we - as believers - have missed the mark.
Anna–
Thank you for your input. I tried to make it clear that is sounded as though I would strongly disagree with Dr. Lee’s words, but I certainly know AJC and your words provide some greater clarity.
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.
To make sure you have the best knowledge of what was said by RML please watch his sermon at The Family Church website. His sermon should be on podcast by mid week.
http://www.mysugarhillchurch.com/
Would someone please provide me the scriptural basis upon which I may rightly apologize for the sins of another?
Anna wrote: Did Jesus apologize to the sinner for they way in which they were treated? Yes.
Really? Where did he do that?
threegirldad,
Your questions brought to mind something that I hadn’t thought of. Interesting how the Pharisees, who were those ‘Christians’ so to speak in Jesus’ day who were outcasting those who didn’t meet their self-righteous standards, and yet Jesus did not apologize or make excuses for them. In fact, Jesus actually said this:
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.
I also recall this passage from Luke 18:
Bradly-
Thanks for the Website. I went there and looked for a statement of Faith and could not find one (it does not mean that it does not exist). I did find a lot of platitudes and the “language” is used but there is nothing that really pins the tail on the Christian donkey. I also found these discriptions of presentations:
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:
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.
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?
James,
What point are you trying to make by quoting that passage?
Nathan,
Exactly so. That’s precisely what I was getting at.
Twitchell,
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.”
tgd-
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.
when people identify someone as a graduate from Southern, they need to identify what year (there’s a significant difference in grads pre- and post-Mohler)
Thomas,
Good comments. Thanks for sharing your clear thinking on this issue.
He is a young man, and I assumed that with his Doctorate from Southern, it has been quite recently that he was doctored. My comment was not meant to reflect on Southern or Mohler.
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.
It is easy for us to take this thing down a road which was certainly unintended. This is not the case of someone who has suddenly decided to be soft on the subjects of specific sins. Neither is it a publicity stunt. The fact that this has been picked up by the media was a surprise to Pastor Lee. Knowing him as I do, I can assure you that his only motives were to lead his church to be more authentic, and to reach out to his community in acknowledging that they as Christians had sometimes been judgemental and self-righteous. I think that is something we all have been guilty of, and we need to admit it. It has nothing to do with “condoning” sinful acts, but I have yet to get to the place where my hands are clean enough for me to pick up a stone to throw. Perhaps the media picked up on this because it is an attitude that is long overdue. 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.
Jim Lee,
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):
Now then: “Amen”? Or “Oh me”?
How in the world do you expect people to “love you and respect you” and “hate you and everything you stand for” at the same time? 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. The essence of God is LOVE, and if we act in such a way that the representatives of God are hated, how shall we ever effectively reach the lost? Missionaries don’t go in trying to change their flock FIRST, but try to earn their trust, and hopefully, in time, see results on the outside as a testimony to what took place within. For a more accurate report of Pastor Lee’s message, please go to www.christianindex.org/4296.article
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?
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 ______.
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.
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?
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?
In case you haven’t seen it yet, here is the link to download the video of the message”
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.
JDanny said:
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.