Pastor Leaves New Church Over Gay Marriage Stance

[John81]

The top pastor of Southwest Church in Indian Wells was asked to resign because he refused to condemn homosexuality, he explained in his resignation letter. 

A few months ago, Pastor Gerald Sharon—who has been lead pastor of Southwest since 2013 and previously served at Saddleback Church in Orange County—asked the church hierarchy to look into "the extent to which a homosexual individual could be involved in the life of Southwest Church."

While the church leadership initially seemed engaged in the discussions, they recently sent Sharon a letter in which they unanimously affirmed Southwest's current position on homosexuality.

Southwest's LGBT policy is written down in a document titled "Homosexuality and Human Sexuality." The document does not appear to be publicly available.

"My heart sank realizing that no homosexual person who would read these documents would truly feel welcome at Southwest Church," Sharon wrote in his resignation letter.

"And if the positions held in these papers are followed, they will effectively exclude homosexual individuals from the life of Southwest. My desire was to rescind these papers, neither affirming nor condemning homosexuality so that all individuals regardless of their perspective could feel completely welcome and fully loved at Southwest."

Sharon's resignation is effective July 8, but the church elders have forbidden him from attending any services at Southwest, according to the resignation letter.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

[Old-Pilgrim]

Hello John, as i see it, the sexually immoral should be put out of fellowship, or to be more precise the openly public and proud should be put out, 1Cor 5. if fornication is kept private then it is most likely because the fornicator knows that it is sin and so in effect is agreeing that it is sin 1Jo 1:9 . As it turns out I have just found out that two of my most sound christian friends have between them three 'gay' sons. this forum seems to be a cyber ghost town. Do you have a face book account?

 

[John81]

One of the things which I don't see raised very often is if this particular sin is okay to accept, tolerate or ignore (or even claim to not be a sin) why not all the other sins?

If a pastor or church thinks they should accept open, practicing homosexuals into the church as full members, able to serve in the church, then should this apply to a known serial rapist, murderer, thief, pedophile?

Most pastors and churches, at least at the moment, would not allow or even consider allowing those open sinners to be members and to serve in the church. Why accept homosexual sinners then?

Sadly, this isn't anything new, as many pastors and churches have (and do) tolerate certain open sinners. Some tolerate adulterers, the sexually promiscuous, dead beat dads, serial divorcees, etc.

This is just one of the many consequences of viewing the church as a place that's supposed to be open and appealing to the lost, where they can come without judgment concerning their pet sins. The so-called "seeker sensitive" philosophy has trickled down to many churches under other guises.

The primary purpose of the church is to build up and train the saved while proclaiming the sinfulness of man and mans need for salvation which only comes through Christ. If a lost sinner enters a church and never feels even a little convicted of their sinfulness then something is wrong there.

[Ukulelemike]

Of course not, because these don't see homosexuality as a sin.

Now a valid question would also be, what if the homosexual is repentant, not living in the lifestyle anymore, but still 'homosexual', in that he still clearly feels the urges?

[John81]

Just now, Ukulelemike said:

Of course not, because these don't see homosexuality as a sin.

Now a valid question would also be, what if the homosexual is repentant, not living in the lifestyle anymore, but still 'homosexual', in that he still clearly feels the urges?

I would consider that a repentant, non-active "homosexual", even if they are still tempted to that sin, are no longer a "homosexual". Being tempted isn't a sin, it's only when we give in to the temptation that we sin and can be defined by the sin (homosexual, adulterer, thief, etc.).   

 

[DaveW]

Can I point out here that the article makes no mention of membership in relation to the matter.

In fact it talks about the issue being "the extent to which a homosexual individual could be involved in the life of Southwest Church."

No church should exclude any person from visiting. The issue iscreally how much involvement a homosexual should be allowed to have in a church.

We all have sinners come to our services. This is right, for upon hearing the preaching a sinner might get saved.

It is however implied - not stated - that the pastor wanted a potential for greater involvement. This would be wrong, as one knowingly in sin should not be serving actively in a church.

But the Pastor only states that is concerned this sort of person would "never feel truly welcome".

That may be true, but no man knowingly in sin feels truly welcome among those who love the Lord.

 

I guess my point is that the article is hopelessly short on actual detail, and judgemental in it's tone.

[Ronda]

I see that pastor was previously a pastor at "Saddleback" church.  Isn't "Saddleback church" affiliated with Rick Warren? The same Rick Warren who erroneously claims that the "god" of islam and God of Christianity are supposedly the same?  If he was under the tutelage of Warren, it should be no surprise what he believes in regard to the LGBT movement. Rick Warren is at the forefront of the ecumenical movement, even going so far as to falsely proclaim that " one can be saved by Jesus Christ without repenting of Buddhist, Muslim, or Catholic beliefs and practices, that each of these religions has its own exclusive way to God, and that other pagan religions worship the Christian God of the Bible"

(from a "Time" magazine article)

That's the same "purpose drive"/"your best life NOW" nonsense guy. Water it down, fluff it up, and omit tons of scripture to please the ungodly right into hell (and make a HUGE profit while doing so). 

2 Tim 3:5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

2 Tim 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Pretty much sums up most of mega-churchianity today.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 6/25/2016 at 10:39 PM, Ronda said:

I see that pastor was previously a pastor at "Saddleback" church.  Isn't "Saddleback church" affiliated with Rick Warren? The same Rick Warren who erroneously claims that the "god" of islam and God of Christianity are supposedly the same?  If he was under the tutelage of Warren, it should be no surprise what he believes in regard to the LGBT movement. Rick Warren is at the forefront of the ecumenical movement, even going so far as to falsely proclaim that " one can be saved by Jesus Christ without repenting of Buddhist, Muslim, or Catholic beliefs and practices, that each of these religions has its own exclusive way to God, and that other pagan religions worship the Christian God of the Bible"

(from a "Time" magazine article)

I am not for or against Mr. Warren, as I have only heard him on early morning radio a coupla times on my way to work, so I ask this question - Do you own the Time Magazine in your reference where it quotes him saying such a thing, where you can say with accuracy it is a true statement from him?

Thanks.

[Genevanpreacher]

Oh, never mind Rhonda, I found your source - http://njministries.org/1FalseTeachers/rick_warren.html .

Thanks for giving out one false source - as that is a quote from the fella talking about Mr. Warren, not quoting the Time Magazine.

[Genevanpreacher]

And this guy you are quoting (and he's the ONLY one I can find online) gives NO evidence at all for what he says in your post above. 

Sad Rhonda.

[HappyChristian]

Well, now. I'm just a wee bit put out at your attitude, GP. And with your research ability.

Here is a link you need to read: http://www.crossroad.to/heaven/Excerpts/books/in-name-of-purpose/hartzell/18-0ne-god-many-paths.htm#7

It is chapter 18 of a book written in response to Warren's garbage book A Purpose Driven Life. Now, take the time to read the page - it really doesn't take long. In it you will find the quote: and it is a direct quote of Rick Warren. Notice, as you read it, that it is annotated with the number 7. Scroll down and find the number 7 at the bottom of the page and you will find the source citation. A live interview of Rick Warren with Larry King.

I realize that Ronda credited a Time magazine article with the quote. And it is entirely possible that the quote wound up in an article for Time. Regardless, there is your source.

You owe Ronda an apology for your snarky attitude.

[swathdiver]

Rick Warren = “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15

[Ronda]

Dear Sister LuAnne, Thank you for defending the quote I made in my absence. An apology was not expected to be received from GP and so am not upset I didn't receive one (nor did I expect one). Actually, I hear many defend false teachers all the time... with much more fervor than they defend God's word. That (in itself) is telling. I have an entire multi-page word document set of quotes and erroneous teaching by/on Rick Warren alone with plenty of reference links... I could go back and dig them all out, but a person has to be willing to hear the truth, and for those who are defensive of the false teachers, I suggest that they can do the research for themselves if they so desire.

The size of the file I have on Rick Warren is similar to the size of the file I have on the Mormon church and their false teachings (very large). I save these for those who are earnestly seeking the truth about these false teachers, and I've taken a lot of time showing others Biblical comparison to the false teachers words. The entire goal of these files/projects was to help those who are earnestly seeking the truth... a comparison of God's word to what they've heard (and have puzzled/bothered them) while they sat under false teachers. If it's helped even one person flee these false teachers and seek a sound independent Baptist church (as well as search out what God's word says in comparison) it is worth all the snarky comments and personal attacks received by the countless others who defend them. It's not a popularity contest. What is most important is serving the Lord, not mankind. 

Gal. 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

This particle Time Magazine article was published with the date of August 18, 2008 and Rick Warren was actually on the cover of the magazine. (Should anyone care to procure a copy for themselves). http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080818,00.html

Edited July 9, 2016 by Ronda
Time magazine link

[...]

Perhaps someone could help me find scriptural support for the following, as I have not yet come across any that supports it in its entirety, but this is what I have been told and tend to adhere to.

Primarily, the role of the church is to educate and edify saved and baptized members, not to be a place for the lost to come into to visit.  Our role, as Christians, is to go out into the world, share the Gospel with them and then bring those who accept the Gospel back into the fold to be discipled.  "Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." (Matthew 22:9)

If anyone desires to take on any sort of leadership position at all, the current leadership and church body would vet them to make sure that their beliefs fall in line with what that church teaches based upon 1 Timothy &c.

I think that many of the issues in many churches stem from wolves attending churches and sharing unbiblical doctrines, twisted scripture and personal opinions among the sheep, causing division.

On June 24, 2016 at 7:32 PM, DaveW said:

No church should exclude any person from visiting.

I respectfully disagree with this statement.  I do not believe we to warmly welcome "drag queens" or half naked prostitutes into our churches; nor do I believe that, If a grown Iranian man comes to church holding hands with his 10 year old wife, we are to welcome them either.  It is for the same reasons that I do not believe that anyone who is engaging in any open and unrepentant sin should be allowed to visit or become members of a Biblically sound church. While we may share the Gospel with them outside of the church, welcoming them into the church may cause strifes, cause newly converted to think that we are accepting their behavior and cause the unrepentant sinner to believe that they are accepted and may continue as they please.

Am I correct in coming to such conclusions?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Brother Stafford

[Invicta]

There is a great difference in visitors and those becoming members. Applications for membership have to be supported by a visible change of life and a convincing testimony.