Imagine the couple coming to meet you at church. They’re in a committed relationship….they share bank accounts, life insurance policies, mortgages….they’re in love and committed to each other. Now they’re interested in becoming believers and joining the church. The only issue is….they’re lesbians. What do you do?
Most churches won’t ever have to deal with this because…well most churches don’t cater to the segment of society where homosexuals live. As Alan Hirsch has pointed out most contemporary, modern churches cater to people that are pretty much like them anyway. This is one of the key marks of the modern church growth movement. It all started with Donald McGraven who said that “people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers.” Rick Warren used this principle to develop his target of Saddleback Sam and most modern churches have followed this lead, even if they didn’t intentionally create a target such as Sam. Hirsch also points out that these churches typically reach people who share the same values (minus Christ) outside of the church. The issue in the US is that this number of people is currently around 25-30% of the population and shrinking.
So the question has to be asked….what about the rest of the US? What about Sandy and Sally? They aren’t two horny, experimental teenage girls but two women in a committed relationship. They share a true love for each other….and they’ve built a life around this love. Where do they go to connect with God? If they come to your church can they hold hands? What if they’ve adopted a child together?
The traditional churches don’t struggle with this because they’ve boycotted and protested the homosexuals…and the homosexuals get the message. The contemporary church has sent a similar message by creating a vanilla group of homogenous worshippers. Does the emerging, missional movement have the potential to reach Sandy and Sally?
**I define emerging as any church not being traditional or contemporary…including house churches and simple churches.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Am I to assume to reach this couple, we – the emerging church – wouldn’t at some point help them to deal with this sin and to come out of this relationship? Would reaching this couple mean to allow them to attend church, become members, and to stay in this relationship? You don’t meet this couple at the door with placards and signs saying, “Die Queer” like the abhorrent group from Kansas… I’m not posing that type of response at all – that is anti-Christ. But wouldn’t the Biblical way to reach Sandy and Sally be to point them to Christ, the Word, what true love is, etc. so that they can have a true relationship with Christ? Socially accepting them and not sharing the whole gospel with them would be damning to them. Just some questions, thank you for the post.
Thanks for posting this, man.
My prayer is that the answer to that question is yes- our churches are open to people different than ourselves; and not just open to, but actually in pursuit of them- in relationship with them. If we believe that disciple-making is most effective in community (which I would think that most of the “emerging churches” define themselves in large part by community), then our communities must be open to those who do not follow Christ; and we must not expect those who do not follow Christ to live as though they do- why would they?
When they encounter people, however, who follow Christ and love them without condemning them for not living as though they already follow Christ, they will be more likely to accept gracious direction leading them to Him. When they are actually accepted and loved as though they need Jesus just as much as we do and no more, there will be open doors for the Gospel to take root in their lives, which then produces righteousness and holiness. We cannot expect holiness to be the desire of those not following Jesus. Nor should we believe that they would be able to shed sin of their own accord without the power of the cross. We do not believe it of ourselves. We cannot force it on others.
I don’t think this means excluding any part of the Gospel, only taking Christ at His word that the world would know us first by our love- a reflection of His. I would think our approach to Sandy and Sally would be the same as Jesus’ approach to the woman at the well. He first offered Living Water. He offered her Himself. He offered her relationship and love and life. Only after that offer did he then call her to put away sin. He was able to approach her in such a way that she was not condemned but freed and she left to tell everyone about the love of this man. And many of those who heard her story also followed Him! Jesus presented the truth to her, a hard truth that would change everything about her life, but only in the context of love- a love that preceded a call to holiness.
This way of disciple-making will be messy. May we love people in the middle of the mess…
For us we let people belong so that they can become . . . become more like Jesus and then begin to behave like Jesus (sorry for the alliteration). I think that most churches have this process reversed. That is, they expect them to behave like Jesus before they will ever let them belong and then expect them to become like Jesus.
What I am trying to say is can someone like Sandy and Sally belong to a church community (I’m not implying regenerate church membership), find love and community so that they can encounter the transformative power of Jesus which changes everything.
We can throw moralisms at them all day long, but until they have encountered the living Christ – his body is the church after all – then “right” and “wrong” will fall on deaf ears.
I am seeing more of this where the gospel is going into places and situations that have very difficult, complicated situations to unfurl. The gospel going to Sandy and Sally can have a huge redemptive effect. The reality that there is a child that is adopted by the couple together is not something that the gospel dissolves. Sorting through what Biblical obedience looks like on this issue is very difficult. For this reason, I think we do well to come with enormous confidence in the redemptive love of God and the truth of His Word. This needs to be meshed with our humility in the reality that He will have to guide us as leaders and those seeking to walk with HIm as we find health and obedience in the midst of chaos.
Great comments. Had another thought, how does Christ and his relationship with the woman at the well pan out today? He approached her about her life while offering life. It was done in love, it was a message of redemption, etc. and it wasn’t passive. She had just met him, maybe she knew of his reputation, maybe she didn’t but he confronted her “sins”. Do we make a trade off in passively preaching the gospel by cementing their lifestyle choices by preaching a passive gospel that doesn’t teach the way of Christ? The lady at the well wasn’t regenerated on the onset of the conversation, at some point she believed. I think I just have this fear that as ministers in the church we allow broken lives in, as we are supposed to, but in the climate of being PC and non-offensive, we can allow them to remain broken and never see the gospel. I know the Holy Spirit convicts and we stand in grave danger of tearing up wheat along with tares, and I’m not advocating we point our fingers at them, embarrass them, not love them – but at what point are they to be confronted in love? Love being the key.
I know I’m probably coming off very fundamental to a bunch of strangers who don’t know me, but my concern is legitimate for homosexuals and how we engage their lives. Albeit, homosexuality isn’t the cardinal sin, but it is sin, hot point sin that spans the political arena as well. Just wondering how we handle the situation Biblically in a way that Christ would be pleased and not our “back woods” sentimentality. Thanks for posting the article and comments! Very helpful to me…
Thanks for posting the question, it’s one worth considering but I sense some confusion in the comments. First off, I wonder of the benefit of posting a question like this and somehow pulling out homosexuality as the quintessential issue? Isn’t posing this question about homosexuality and not sin in general doing the exact same thing as others who use Homosexuality as heaven’s whipping boy?
While the particulars of one sin or another are nuanced, how to deal with them within the redemptive community called the church is clear:
1 Corinthians 5:11
Ephesians 5:8-11
2 Timothy 3:1-5
The other confusion I sense here is a misunderstanding about the nature of the church. The very first sentence of the post set the stage for the confusion: “Imagine the couple coming to meet you at church.” People don’t “go to church” they visit a building, a gathering, a home, etc. Scripture is clear that the church are those who have been set apart, sanctified, and added to Christ’s body by Jesus himself. (See Acts 2) Defining church as a place where people go and where people can visit sets the stage for mass confusion as seen in the comments (esp. Michael Carpenter “For us we let people belong before they become.”) We have no right to do that! We don’t add people to the church, Jesus does. Belonging and becoming are the same event. We become Christians and are added by Jesus to his church, thus belonging.
Now this isn’t to say that we’re mean to people, that we refuse to allow them to come to our gatherings to hear the teaching of the word, hear our singing, or participate in our meetings, but there is a clear delineation between the church and the visitors. Dealing with blatant homosexual sinners outside of a repentant relationship with Jesus should be handled the same way as we deal with any other person living in rebellion. We teach them the truth in love calling them to repent, confess and obey, trusting in Jesus to redeem and renew their life.
Am I missing something?
Kevin, I just do not understand how belonging and becoming are the same event. Aren’t we all in process of becoming like Jesus? And I made no reference to the “place where people go.” Also, I made it clear that belonging is not the same as regenerate church membership.
Some questions, questions I feel Grady wrestled with in this post:
Do addicts belong in a church community? I’m one. Been clean almost 9 years.
Do sex offenders? Currently mentoring a 19 year old who was charged with statutory rape when he got caught having sex by a 16 year old’s mother. He is not a believer yet, but in process. Do I tell him he cannot belong to and do life with our church community until he believes?
Do homosexuals? We have a church member who walked away from the church in his teenage years, began pursuing a homosexual lifestyle and contracted HIV. We allowed him to belong to our community because he had been rejected everywhere else and he has since rediscovered his faith and is becoming more and more like Jesus everyday. Should of we not let him belong until he rediscovered his faith?
Let me clarify what I meant by “Becoming;” I am speaking of the salvific becoming as opposed to the sanctifying becoming. I am speaking of the salvation event that occurs at the moment of obedient faith where the dead person becomes alive, lost becomes found. Then there is the lifelong process of becoming like Jesus called sanctification. As we see in scripture, the Lord Jesus adds all saved people to his community called the church, made up by all of the saved.
If the saved community called the church was NOT the place you were referring to when you said people can belong then what other community were you referring to?
If you believe unregenerate, rebellious people can somehow “belong” to the saved community how do you reconcile the verses I cited above?
Proof texting aside, why can’t a “lost” person belong to a church community – a community of the saved? Again I am not talking about regenerate church membership – just belonging, hanging out, being friends with the church folk, feeling like they are a part of.
In my own story, I NEVER would of become a follower of Jesus if I had not been allowed to belong to a church community BEFORE I made the decision to repent and believe the Gospel. This community loved me, accepted me, and cared for me in my addiction, even helped me through the heroin withdrawal process – once a “saved” man even carried me into a shower and held me up and bathed me because I was too weak to get up out of bed and out of my own feces and vomit. He showed me the Jesus I had never seen before. Yet it was still around 6+ weeks later before I “got saved” and I “belonged” to this community during that entire time. And for being able to belong to this church community, I am eternally grateful.
Grady, did you go on a walkabout?
No proof texting, just following the text. A lost person cannot belong to the church because Jesus is the only one who can add to his community. That doesn’t mean that they can’t spend time with the church body, be befriended by member of the church body, prayed for, discipled, etc. It worked beautifully for you. Praise God!
However, the church by definition is the set apart ones (the definition of ekklesia; see 1 Peter 2:9-12) There is still a functional difference between the members of the church community and those still in the world.
You’ve differentiated between the church community and regenerate church membership twice now…where in scripture do you find this distinction? How do you maintain a distinction between them in your congregation? Are there things that Christians can do in your community that non-Christians can’t…and if so, what standard did you use to define those things?
(Again, this all goes back to my original point which was that Lesbians should not be treated any differently than other unregenerate seekers in our midst. However, a scriptural distinction must always be made between the saved and unsaved.)
Seems that Grady dumped the chum in the water and sat down to watch.
Kevin,
I believe these are semantics issues. There is context to everything, and you are creating one from illusion that is simply not true, which causes you to make false assumptions about both Grady and Michael’s statements. Grady wrote this post, not labeling homosexuality as the “quintessential sin”, but as a very real example of the impending reality that faces the church today. He chose it as the example (I think), because he has been in conversation within the past couple of weeks with people who are facing this very issue (self included). There was no desire to elevate one sin above another, but for sake of conversation, to give a real-time example to illustrate the discussion.
I can also guarantee that Grady in no way believes that a weekly gathering constitutes the fullness of church, as is demonstrated by both his writing here on the blog, his speech, and his lifestyle. The reality is, though, that most of us are involved in corporate gatherings as a part of our church life and we may face these situations in them. Again, it is just an example. If it suits your needs better, you can adjust the example and place it in context of relationship. Ask yourself how you would handle the situation if you personally knew a homosexual couple who were asking you questions about Jesus. Would you tell them they needed to stop their behavior and then Jesus would love them; and then you would, too? Or would you love them in spite of their sin as Jesus did for us (while we were His enemies- Rom 5.10)and invite them to join you? To have dinner with you? To hang out with you? To be loved by you? It seems like Jesus thought this way- always eating with sinners- unregenerate and debase though they were. He was in community with them. I believe that is the heart of what Grady wants to discuss (though I do not dare speak for him- correct me if I am wrong, Grady).
I believe, as well, that this is Michael’s heart. He genuinely loves people and wants to see them join the community of the redeemed fully. To shut them out of our fellowship because they have sin is to judge them before their time and with possibly marred motives. The Scripture you quoted above in 1 Cor 5 speaks to that truth. Paul tells the church cut ties with the one who calls himself a brother and is in unrepentant sin in verse 11. That is an insider- a church member. In verses 12 and 13, he tells them that he (and by implication, they), however, has no right to judge those outside the church. That is for God to do. Therefore, with judgment out of the arsenal, grace is the only response we have to offer those outside the church.
Jesus spoke to this situation, as well, in Matt 26 and Mark 14, when the sinful woman busted up in the dinner party at Simon’s house to anoint Jesus’ feet. The religious of the bunch thought she should be kicked out and scolded for her waste and knowing her sin. He fought for her and treasured her, including her forever in the Gospel.
There is certainly a delineation between those inside the church and those without, as you have aptly pointed out. I think the discussion lies not in that difference, but in how we handle that difference. Does it become an exclusivity clause on our gatherings and around our dinner tables? Or do we understand that we have been graciously grafted into God’s story (not of ourselves, it is a gift of God), the participants of which are “blessed to be a blessing”, and invite others into the story?
Again, I understand that belonging to Christ is an important thing, and that those outside of the church do not belong to Him in that way. However, belonging to Him and belonging with us are two different things. We can love lost people just as hard as those within the church, and I would argue that it is our call to do so. There were obviously lots of people who joined up with Jesus and did life with Him, following Him, listening to His teaching, and being loved by Him who did not actually belong. There were thousands along the way who could be found in His shadow on the mountainside or chasing Him in the city streets, but only 120 of them were gathered when the room was shaken at the advent of the church. It seems as if Jesus had a congregation full of more people who did not follow him in the end than actually did.
He taught truth, and many of those that heard the truth left, because it was too hard. But those that stayed shared in His story and began preaching His Gospel so that the world would be shaken and we would follow Him, too…and they spent a lot of time with unregenerate, filthy sinners for that reason alone…
sorry for the book.
Aplogizes to Graddy . . . I think we may of wandered a bit but nevertheless . . .
I get what you are saying Kevin, but you are misunderstanding what I mean by belonging. I make the distinction from the totality of New Testament Scripture – especially the example of Jesus dining with sinners. Jesus even shared his last meal on earth with his betrayer. We, as a church, make that distinction through baptism and our covenant with one another.
We are about actively ushering not-yet-Christians into the web of relationships among the church and welcome them be involved (though not leading) in the life of the church. In turn, the church – God’s missionary people – continue in prayer for the person and seek to demonstrate the love of God in practical ways, not to complete strangers, but instead people who by all accounts do not know God but are in genuine friendship with missionary people who do. In this way the not-yet-Christian is not connecting with the church in terms of events and large programs, but instead smaller face-to-face ongoing contact with people who love and speak truthfully to them.
Over time, the non-Christian’s social circle begins to include more and more Christian friends and they participate in the church (i.e. serving but not leading in a ministry, poking around the web site, attending church, having meals in people’s homes, attending a Bible study, etc.) as a byproduct of being part of the social network of the church. The non-Christians see the very natural and practical outworking of the gospel in people’s lives and begin to identify themselves with the church before they identify themselves by speaking of our church and my church—which we do not believe indicates faith but is a good step along the journey to speak of our Jesus and my Jesus. As trust builds with their friends and the church, they have become accustomed to hearing about Jesus Christ often and at some point God gives them faith and they pass from death to life. This precise moment is often unknown to us and what we are less concerned about is the exact moment of salvation and more concerned about their understanding of the gospel and love for Jesus Christ that changes them as they become new creations in Christ. The non-Christians are well aware that Christian friends are praying for them and desire for them to be saved. So, when they do become Christians, they confess Christ to their friends who are overjoyed and spread the good news throughout their social network in the church that results in great joy and celebration. The new Christian then is baptized so they can make a public profession of faith. We encourage them to invite their friends and family to their baptism so that they can begin their work as a missionary who is to remain in those relationships for the purpose of bringing the gospel as it was brought to them.
Rodney, I would argue that these are not semantics but rather weighty issues that need precise definitions and robust discussion to ferret them out.
If you read my comments carefully you will see my answer on how I approach non-Christians; with genuine love, respect, and friendship. Nothing I’ve said prohibits my genuine friendship with them.
However, here’s why I decided to reply: Paul specifically addressed the person who “calls himself a brother” for a reason. Here was a situation in the church with someone coming along and participating in the life of the body all the while living in blatant rebellion. The church accommodated this lifestyle while celebrating their tolerance. Is that a fair summary?
When we blur the lines of who is a member of the body and who is not we create a situation where people living in unrepentant, rebellious sin can take the liberty of thinking that they are “brothers/sisters.” I’ve personally seen this multiple times so I’m not speaking hypothetically.
Blurring the lines of community only perpetuates the illusion paving the way for a 1 Corinthian 5 situation to happen. In my mind that is a very unloving thing to do.
Thanks for the discussion guys, it’s been a fun and a sharpening experience.
Wow…I step away for a day and a meaningful discussion happens….I should step away more often. There’s so much to look through here…and so much to respond to…..where to start?
I asked about Sandy and Sally because they are a prime example of the type of people most of our churches are ill-equipped to reach. I don’t believe they are the “ultimate” sinners…but most of our churches do. The Southern Baptist boycotted Disney because of homosexuality….have they ever boycotted Ryan’s steak house because of gluttony? Don’t think so. I also don’t believe that the church is a building or sunday morning gathering. But most of our churches do and that was my point.
Most traditional and contemporary churches are built on the attractional model…..build it an they will come. This works for a increasingly small percentage of the population that basically already believes the same things. If you don’t believe me….visit most churches (especially in the south) and you’ll mostly white, conservative, suburban living, moral, middle-class people. Most of our churches are targeting this same group of people….whose lives with or without Jesus look incredibly similar.
The question I’m asking is ….who is going to reach Saddleback Sandy and Sally? Who is going to reach the person who isn’t conservative…republican? Who is going to reach the sex offenders and drug addicts? Will they be willing to leave their world and enter into the Christian bubbles we call campuses? Who will reach Sandy and Sally?
Kevin,
Thanks for dropping by and commenting. I’m a little confused by your comments. You said that belonging and becoming are the same event….really. So you attend a church where there is no sin? So when an overweight person visits your church they must lose the weight and leave their gluttonous lifestyle behind before they can belong?
What about the couple that is in massive debt due to greed and pride? Do they have to be out of debt and have healthy spending habits prior to belong?
IF this is what you’re saying…then you’re proving my point. Our current way of doing church is broken. We require outside homogenization before someone can belong. Which is worse….a straight married couple that is overweight (gluttonous), prideful, in debt, unhealhty and smokes….or a homosexual couple that is healthy, lives within their means (doesn’t covet)? Which one do our churches seem ok with? Obviously the first couple….our churches are full of them. Why? Because we’re typically more concerned with outside conformity than we are with inside transformation.
I like the discussion, but it is all on the level of theory. Does anyone know a lesbian couple that began to follow Jesus and are now believers? A Gay couple? A heterosexual couple… that didn't end up getting married?
Several thoughts:
The factor that leads most people to faith is an ongoing relationship with a community of believers, and it takes on average two years (see first research item at InternetEvangelismDay.com/research ). It would take a community of huge maturity to offer an ongoing unconditional welcome to such a couple. And how does an unconditional (or almost unconditional) welcome fit with the message it would send to, say, the young people in the church. (Of course, I think in practice such a couple would seek out a church of liberal theology in the first place. I know just such a couple in just such a church.)
There are similar hard questions for how to minister to people who have had gender reassignment. I happen to know such a person online, who had unsurprisingly some difficulty in finding a welcoming fellowship. Happily, she did. And, as you ask, she had gender reassignment as a conservative evangelical, after a messed up life, and does not regret the choice.
Grady…you have a point…but it is easily countered. Where does the body of Christ draw the line?
Where the Word of God draws the line.
If a someone is completely undressed and enters your sanctuary…what do you do?
Jesus entered His Father's house and for “church leaders” greed turned the tables over.
For hypocritical leaders Jesus called them out in front of the crowd when they questioned healing on the Sabbath.
But to those who are still not “part of the body”…He told the truth…”Go and sin no more”
And that was to a woman caught in the very act.
She saw mercy but Jesus didn't keep quiet so she would think He was “accepting” the act of adultery.
He is truth…accepting people and not accepting their sin is not something we can learn until we hate the sin that is within us first.
Fillet Mignon covered in cat urine is not going to be eaten by anyone…even if they love steak.
Christ did come to destroy the works of the devil and to seek and save those who are lost.
Is there a perfect way to speak the truth in Love.
Christ loved us in that “while” we were yet sinners, He died for us.
God's work is perfect and while we are becoming perfected in Him may we seek to do as He is helping us to be in Him and to continually reach out to others.
Stephen,
I wrote this post after speaking with a friend that is going through this situation. A lesbian couple, very much in love, has started attending their church. They have joint accounts, health-care, insurance policies…the whole thing. They are working through how to respond….it may be theory for most of us but we need to work through it so when God brings them to us we can respond in the correct way.
A lesbian couple, very much in love…
What is our response to a man who comes into your church with a 10 year old girl who are “very much in love”?
What is our response to a man who is openly in an adulterous relationship with one of your congregations' wife?
What about someone who is a known extortioner?
What about someone who is breaking God's commandments and (key here) has been comfronted with the Word of God in Love (unless the Word of God which does often show a loving rebuke is not considered love in people's opinion) since they are there to either join a club and be accepted “just the way they are” and not lead to see any error and brought to the Love of Christ that He took the wrath of God just for kicks.
What if a heterosexual couple, very much in love, has started attending your church. They have joint acocunts, health-car, insurance policies, and even like the same sports teams.
What happens if they are not born again and die tomorrow…
Both couples will stand before God in judgement…
But “if” they or some are born again and die tomorrow…
All will stand before God in judgement…
Please read:
Ezk 3:17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.
18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for [a] his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.
19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.
21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
Now I know someone can try to tell me about old testament vs. new…
or Israel vs. the Church.
But if you did NOT read the passage above then it may be obvious that this truth is not in you.
I spent 13 years in a church building thinking I was part of the body of Christ…
I was not.
But for His Grace…
I alway knew of His Grace but I had never thought I desperately need His Grace.
We all do…don't look passed anyone's sin…especially our own.
Christ didn't
Please forgive me if this is a site that is for the lost.
My passion of what I wrote was for the leaders who may think we need to “lighten up” on the call to do the work of an evangelist. To seek and save those who are lost. To make disciples of all nations.
Imagine you are recruting those in the military who will not only be asked to save and protect others but also be a strength and encouragment to you.
Do you want a soft gospel message that may not communicate the seriousness of what was done by God through Christ on the Cross?
A lesbian couple, very much in love…
What is our response to a man who comes into your church with a 10 year old girl who are “very much in love”?
What is our response to a man who is openly in an adulterous relationship with one of your congregations' wife?
What about someone who is a known extortioner?
What about someone who is breaking God's commandments and (key here) has been comfronted with the Word of God in Love (unless the Word of God which does often show a loving rebuke is not considered love in people's opinion) since they are there to either join a club and be accepted “just the way they are” and not lead to see any error and brought to the Love of Christ that He took the wrath of God just for kicks.
What if a heterosexual couple, very much in love, has started attending your church. They have joint acocunts, health-car, insurance policies, and even like the same sports teams.
What happens if they are not born again and die tomorrow…
Both couples will stand before God in judgement…
But “if” they or some are born again and die tomorrow…
All will stand before God in judgement…
Please read:
Ezk 3:17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.
18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for [a] his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.
19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.
21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
Now I know someone can try to tell me about old testament vs. new…
or Israel vs. the Church.
But if you did NOT read the passage above then it may be obvious that this truth is not in you.
I spent 13 years in a church building thinking I was part of the body of Christ…
I was not.
But for His Grace…
I alway knew of His Grace but I had never thought I desperately need His Grace.
We all do…don't look passed anyone's sin…especially our own.
Christ didn't
Please forgive me if this is a site that is for the lost.
My passion of what I wrote was for the leaders who may think we need to “lighten up” on the call to do the work of an evangelist. To seek and save those who are lost. To make disciples of all nations.
Imagine you are recruting those in the military who will not only be asked to save and protect others but also be a strength and encouragment to you.
Do you want a soft gospel message that may not communicate the seriousness of what was done by God through Christ on the Cross?