"Women Pastors:" An Appeal for a Biblical Perspective

This letter was directed at a church in Toronto that I used to attend to with my bride. On September 22, 2019 the pastor took on the contentious subject of so-called 'women pastors.' While I admire(d) his courage in taking on this matter, his failure to adequately explain the validity of the subject in church, or to explain to me, in private (his response, and the church's, are at the bottom of the letter), why my view is wrong, Biblically, caused me to permanently cease attending. 

As always, some words or phrases have since been edited for clarity and grammar. The name of the church and pastor is, out of respect, kept anonymous. If you wish to know who they are, please contact me in private Read on.

 

Dear Sir(s),

please express to Pastor B my respect for the courage he showed in taking on the now-contentious subject of so-called women pastors in the church. I genuinely respect COURAGE of any kind, whether in the battlefield fighting for one's country, the domestic field, fighting to protect lives and people from harm, or in the political and religious field, fighting for what is right and/or contending for the faith (Jude 1:3).

 

Indeed it is very rare, these days, to plunge into any subject deemed either politically incorrect or potentially 'offensive' to someone. The days when one could freely speak their mind, in most forums, has seemingly vanished in the crush to seemingly 'appease' the sensibilities and proclivities of whatever social trend is loudest at the moment, at the expense of one's beliefs and principles.

 

So, for what it's worth, I applaud Pastor B for attempting to take on the subject of so-called Women Pastors. I say 'so-called' because, despite his best efforts, I see serious flaws in his argument and remain unconvinced that even he, himself, truly believes what he said.

 

This is very problematic for me and I will tell you why; both my bride and her mom go to and even served in some capacity (my bride briefly) the church for some years.  Since I married her almost seven years ago, I have also attended, mostly to keep the peace in the family and avoid any unnecessary rifts. Our biggest rift, apart from my dislike of what I see a lot of worldly music and worship creeping into your church body, is my stance on so-called "women pastors."

 

For the most part I've gotten around this issue by staying home whenever a so-called 'Woman pastor' was 'preaching' in order to keep my conscience clear and any taint of hypocrisy far from me. Now, after Pastor B's sermon, where he failed to convince me of the voracity of Scripture supporting so-called 'women pastors,' I do not believe I can do even that.

 

Whatever personal consequences that may cause me are secondary to the fact that the doctrine enunciated by Pastor B is FALSE and almost heretical to the teaching's of Scripture. The examples he used were very weak and do not address the central issue of 1 Timothy 2:12 which is not whether a woman can be a 'prophetess' (my bride is very spiritually gifted herself and is a source of strength in my studies) or teach other women (Titus 2:4) but of AUTHORITY AND ORDER.

 

This is PLAINLY and CLEARLY expounded in 2 Timothy 2:13-14 which Pastor B addressed but did not confront. Instead he went off on some tangent trying to justify an Un-Biblical position by citing the example of Aquila and Priscilla. These people, highly loved by Paul and mentioned at least six times in the New Testament, were a wonderful couple and brothers and sisters in the Lord indeed. In using these as examples to justify that the 'pastor role' was, indeed, given to a woman, Pastor B failed to mention that the man who was being taught (and taught by them BOTH, not Priscilla alone), Apollos was that he was not really a Christian, having, as the verse says "...knowing only the baptism of John." (Acts 18:25) MOREOVER this 'instruction' was not given IN the church but, apparently, in some kind of private moment (the Bible says "they took him unto them.") thus preserving the ORDER in the church and maintaining the rule set up by Paul for orderly worship.

 

This is a great Biblical principle and one must be mindful of it to avoid another heresy expounded by Pastor B, that the verses addressing so-called 'women pastors' are to be seen as only being addressed to the body of believers in Timothy's church and ministry. Entirely apart from the fact that it is entirely puzzling to imagine why Paul, or the writers of the Bible, would include a passage that was only specific to one body and not the entire body of the church, is the fact that Paul essentially says the same thing about women in 1 Timothy 2: 9-11 as he does about them in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35!

 

Were I to take the what Pastor B said at face value, it would not be hard to assume I could apply the same method of inquiry into the idea that homosexuals need not repent to be saved because, as the world says, 'God loves them as they are.' I could, likewise, begin to omit and/or create pathways around other contentious subjects simply by gently bending or twisting other passages of the Bible, as he did, in order to avoid upsetting the world or those who worship before the God of 'equality' and 'equal right's' and 'feminism' rather than the God the Bible.

 

I am, as Pastor B said, a biblical literalist but I'm not a Biblical 'stupidist;" in other words I do not necessarily believe that when the Bible says something it is always meant as it is written or meant without context. Take Pastor B's example (really, challenge) in Mathew 5:29, where Jesus tells us that "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." The word "offend" means "to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall." By this you can see that the Lord was being both literal and figurative; in other words if your eye TRULY causes you to stumble, YES you SHOULD pluck it out; better to avoid temptation that can cause you to fall or remain in sin and go to hell. Likewise you should also cause your right to be cut off if it leads you to sin (Mathew 5:30).

 

But is it just  your EYE or Hand that causes you to stumble in sin? Or is it something else? Indeed your whole sin-nature is constantly at WAR with your spirit (Galatians 5:17), fighting every day against the Rebirth you experienced at the moment of Salvation. A pastor once said that it is basically the 'dying' old man of flesh fighting  the living NEW man born of the Spirit and this battle continues on until we do die.

 

Does that mean we should cut off more body parts? What particular part of our flesh can we truly remove to prevent us from stumbling back into sin? Perhaps we should just go the whole hog, get saved and kill ourselves to avoid this battle? Of course that would pretty much end the ministry and go against he commandment to share the gospel (we don't have 'Force ghosts' the way Luke Skywalker did vis-a-vie Ben Kenobi and later Yoda) that can do the work of us.

 

Taken literally, therefore, yes, I fully agree; whatever causes you to stumble, remove it. But the principle behind what Jesus said goes beyond the literal verse much as He didn't mean we have a limit on the many times  we should forgive those who offend us (70 x 7 = 490) - Matthew 18:22. In other words, I sincerely believe that the Lord did mean not only include a limb but your TV, your internet, your phone, your photographs, indeed, any personal belonging that stands between you and God you must remove. This also includes people in your life. Or perhaps churches too.

 

In my personal life I've had or had others 'remove' things that caused me pain, my appendix being one. But I've also removed myself from people, people I care about, because they were walking down a path I know was wrong and would not repent of it. The most recent case being the man who married my bride and I, because he attended (and tried to justify his attending of) the so-called 'wedding' of his gay brother.

 

Now I love my friend and his family. Indeed his father, also a pastor, was a significant factor in my young and growing faith. I also babysat his gay-brother too. This was painful and difficult for both my bride and I. But we did so because by going to this church we felt we were endorsing a man who did not see the error of his ways and, as a result, was likely to cause his church to stumble; many of whom  saw photos of him attending this so-called 'wedding.'

 

The Bible says "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 8:6). This is the burden, primarily, of leaders.

 

We can see this in our current political election where by the current Prime Minister has shown great hypocrisy and has outright lied to the public during his tenure. Had he applied to himself the same standard as he did to others, he would have resigned. Had he, likewise, been forgiving to others, I would, likewise, have respect for him. But he has done neither; instead acting as if the rules that he set out for others do not apply to him. Beyond that his support of so-called 'gay marriage' and the evident pandering to every unChristian idea or doctrine (despite supposedly being a Christian) reveals him to be both a fraud, a hypocrite, and, beyond that, a person totally unsuited to the role for which he aspires and hopes others will still give him a chance at.

 

This same thing must also apply to ministers in churches. Indeed I believe that it is far MORE important that it should for while leaders come and go and affect us for the time, however brief, they rule our lives, those things which are taught us in church have a profound and lasting effect upon the body.  It is for this reason that James 1:3 says "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."

 

The word MASTERS equals teacher. It is, therefore, incumbent upon teachers/pastors/leaders of all kinds but especially those in the church (for the Bible was written, in part, for those who are in the church rather than for secular authorities) to be right with their doctrines lest they 'offend' not to the world but to 'one of these little ones who believe in me.'

 

The word 'offend' in Matthew 18:6 is the same word used by Jesus in Matthew 5:8, the principle being that if you cause someone to stumble, in this case in their faith, you need to cast out. I don't have any spare millstones around so I'm not suggesting that Pastor B wear one or be tossed into the sea for his mistakes any more than I would wish someone to do that to me for mine (Do unto others...Luke 6:31) But I do wish him to re-examine his teaching on Sept 22 2019 and understand that it is simply NOT BIBLICALLY SUPPORTED, despite his (weak) attempts to make it appear so.

 

I worry about this, especially, since it can and likely will create rifts in my family and in others. That is not to say that I am upset he brought it up. Indeed, as I said at the beginning, I respect Pastor B for the courage of doing so. But I am equally grieved that his justification for so-called 'women pastors' does not meet the criterion of either a literal interpretation, or even a principle  that can extend beyond it. Indeed by opening up the discussion to the notion that Paul was only directly speaking to this church and not to all churches he risks asking others to apply this to all other doctrines espoused not only by Paul but of other Apostles and Prophets, indeed of Jesus Christ Himself!

 

These are very dangerous waters to wade into and I tremble in my heart for him, indeed, for other ministers who seem willing to shoehorn doctrines that are Biblical but not popular into the Bible and expound them throughout the church.  Would, I ask you, the founder of the church, O.S., have accepted such teachings?

 

Even if you do not accept my views, can you at least consider his? If this man did not accept women 'pastors' why would you now? Would you repudiate his words (and the Bible's) to make them 'more relevant' or more 'modern?' Are you suggesting that the God of your church  is, likewise, changing his mind much as the faux 'god' of the Mormon Church who frequently changes his mind on such things as blacks in the church and plural marriage? These things must be considered on any issue but more so on contentious issues such as so-called 'women pastors' where the verses are especially clear and not for private interpretation as Pastor B attempted to do (2 Peter 1:20).

 

At any rate, for now and until I am convinced that this false doctrine has been repudiated and this church is set on a sound Biblical foundation, I will refuse, any more, to sit among you. Before this day I could wink and nudge at the notion of so-called 'women pastors' in your church as long as I stayed away when they are present. But since your senior pastor not only endorses this UNBIBLICAL policy but attempted to deceive people as to its rectitude, I must walk away until it is repudiated.

 

Again I expect conflict in my marriage and family as a result but this is natural since Jesus did NOT come to bring 'peace' but a sword and set people against each other ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."  Matthew 10:34-35). That, too, is also a hard doctrine, people having grown used to the idea that God is love and Jesus is the Prince of Peace, but it is true and does not diminish the other wonderful characteristics of God. Indeed it is an affirmation of God, whose first step after crating light was DIVISION between light and darkness (Genesis 1:4).

 

That said I will not prohibit my bride from attending. I will simply trust that God shows her the truth of what I believe on rather than the half-truths and misguidance provided by Pastor B today; and which I am not entirely certain he believes in fully himself (he kept saying 'I think" which is very telling and also shows he is going more on opinion rather than conviction).

 

Be that as it may I wish no one at the church any ill will. Rather I pray that God will kindly reveal the truth of Scripture to Pastor B and that he will embrace it fully. Should he do so, and should the church come to this understanding, I will gladly resume attending. Until then I will seek another body whose leadership is fully prepared to sacrifice their unbiblical and perhaps worldly notions for God rather than God for their unbiblcial and worldly notions.

 

In Christ,

I.M. Ulysses
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE From Pastor B (Oct. 28 2019)

Thank you for you comments about my message on September 22^nd, I appreciate the careful thought you put into crafting your feedback. As I mentioned in my message, I recognize that there are different interpretations of the passage I spoke on. It was my desire to help people understand why The Peoples Church has always welcomed women to serve in ministry.

 

I respect your decision to follow your convictions, and trust God will lead you to the appropriate Church.

 

In Christ,

Pastor B.

--------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE From the Board of Directors of the church (Oct. 26 2019)

Thank you for taking the time to pen your comprehensive remarks about the sermon our Pastor, B., delivered on Sunday, September 22nd.  I am sorry that you did not receive a response to your inquiry via the church general mailbox.  This is something we will look into.

It is the purpose of this note to acknowledge your position and state ours.  As the Board of Directors of the church, we stand behind the teaching of our Pastor, B.  We know unequivocally that Pastor B is the Lord’s choice to lead our congregation and continue the work as defined by our founder, O.S.  As such we stand by his teaching and know that he has the appropriate wisdom, guidance, faith and mentoring to teach as the Lord directs.

With that we wish to express our respect for your opinion.  If you feel you must leave, we are sorry to see you leave but pray that you will find a church body when you feel comfortable in growing and nurturing you faith.

With respect,

The Chair, Board of Directors, of the church

(the chair was a woman, initials J.E.)

Homosexuality, Sin, and the Church: An Appeal to Pastors and Church Leaders to Stand up for God and the Truth

This is a letter/appeal I wrote to the pastor of the church my bride and I have been attending regularly in Toronto, on October 28 2020. I have received no reply from him or the church. (please note: I edited a small part to improve grammar, clarity, and spelling)

Dear Pastor,

I speak to you with fear, knowing how highly inadequate I am to bring your attention to a matter that troubled me since this Sunday morning; and praying (and hoping) someone far more knowledgeable has already made you aware of it.

For starters, I am a nobody. I say this without any false modesty or exaggerated humility either.  Indeed, God, who knows all things, can testify that of all men, I am the least qualified to speak to you or any minister, having no formal learning or holding any position, even a minor one, in the church. 

In short, I am not presuming to speak to you from any position of moral or intellectual superiority and I ask that you and God forgive me if it should come across this way. I do dare, however, to speak, if at all, because of something my bride saw as we left the church today that cut me to the quick and demanded, (and still demands) from me, a response, be-it-ever-so difficult to utter.

After I spoke to you in person, following the conclusion of the sermon (yes, I’m “that” guy), I told my bride about our conversation. She often worries when I get that ‘look’ in my eye when something bothers me, as it did today, and how I would react to it afterwards (she left to wait for me in the car, not wishing to be around as I harangued you).  

I assured her that, despite her worries, I did not (I hope) alienate the one minister in Toronto whose church I have enjoyed coming too. Reassured she told me that, as she was walking to her car, she saw two men, presumably gay, walking out holding hands.

That deeply affected me. I told her “how interesting. Here we are, Christians, in church, and were made to question the validity of not attending so-called ‘gay marriages’ while two gay people were likely affirmed in their views that it was right. Moreover,” I told her, “we were made to feel guilty for thinking homosexuality was bad while this gay ‘couple’ likely walked out affirmed in their views that it was good.”

My bride agreed that this was, in essence true; that you, Pastor, by using Luke 5:27-32 in the way you did, suggested to the church that it was okay for a Christian to attend a so-called gay marriage because Christ attended a party hosted by a tax collector. The heart of the argument being that gays are no different sinners than anyone else (specifically tax collectors, in this case) and that if Jesus did not find anything wrong with going to an event hosted by the latter, He would be okay with us attending the former (if you remember, you said you thought Jesus would attend a so-called ‘gay marriage’, a point we truly disagree on).

So I looked at Luke 5:27-32 again. What is clear, from my reading, is that Levi WAS a sinner. But having been told by Jesus to follow Him, he became a disciple. Indeed, it says “he left everything behind’ the meaning of which (“he left”) comes from the old Greek word kataleipō which, translated, means “forsake” or “to depart from, leave,” in this context. In short, it would seem that Levi no longer was a tax collector; that he gave EVERYTHING UP to follow Jesus. 

So what about this party? The New American Standard Bible (the translation through which I was saved by reading) says, “And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them.” (Luke 5:29) The word ‘reception’ in this case comes from the Greek word Doche, which means a feast or a banquet. 

To what extent this feast or banquet became something of a drinking party is anyone’s guess. Perhaps it truly was one riotous party of the kind you suggested? Or perhaps it was merely a large, well-equipped banquet, as a celebration. Since we are not there it is but foolish speculation. But the real question is what was this party for?

According to Luke 5:29 “And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them.” In short, this party was FOR Jesus, the one who called Levi to be His disciple. Christ, Levi’s new friend, was the guest of honour.  

What’s also interesting is who Levi invited. Here is Levi, touched by Jesus, inviting his former colleagues to celebrate with him. Was it because he had no other friends? Arguably most tax collectors would not have had many friends outside of his (or their) perhaps now-former profession to invite. But why invite them at all? Why not invite only family members, or non-tax collectors? 

Jesus said, as you know, that “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32). Based on this, my bride, and I, believe that Levi’s reason for inviting “a great crowd of tax collectors” was because he was filled with great joy at having become a disciple and wanted others to follow this great man, Jesus, as he was now doing. 

In short, Levi was not inviting Christ to participate in the sins of the tax collectors. He was inviting the tax collectors (and others) to participate in the salvation and grace of Jesus Christ!

This is a critical point and why I believe your idea that there is a moral equivalency between Jesus going to a party, hosted by a new disciple in His honour, and a Christian attending a so-called ‘gay wedding,’ is morally vacant and completely unbiblical.

Weddings are celebrations of a holy union between one man and one woman. These unions are often blessed by God and, as in most cases, it is said ‘whom God has joined together let no man (one) set asunder.’ Never having been to a so-called ‘gay wedding’ I cannot speak to the specifics of such an event. I do know, as you do, that homosexuality is sin. I also know, as you do, that the Lord says “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil;” (Isiah 5:20

How then can God bless these so-called ‘marriages?’ If HE did, He would be affirming a union founded, not in holiness, but sin and make Himself a liar and a hypocrite!!  How then can we, Christians, who espouse and support, the teachings of the Bible, even dare attend such an event? 

You said to me that you thought Jesus WOULD attend such an event. I see no Biblical or moral support for such a view. If He did, then He would make himself an active participant in honouring sin, as I would, and you would, by attending.

Now I do not presume or imply that I am without sin. I have no stones to throw and, if truth be known, I believe I would be a better target of such righteous wrath than most. 

But I confess my sins, I do not proclaim them. I do not hold parades for them or try to validate them by shaming weak people and weak Christians into passing laws that validate them either. I submit them to the Lord, daily, and ask Him to help me walk in truth and light, knowing that the enemies of Christ and Christians, will seek every opportunity to discredit us when we stumble.

Do gay people confess their sins? Do they feel guilty and convicted in their hearts for living in a way completely contrary to all biblical truth? That’s debatable. 

What’s not debatable is history. Over the last twenty years, primarily through court action (remember Californians voted FOR Proposition 8, to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the state constitution, something that was overthrown by the supreme court after being challenged by homosexuals), and public opinion, the gay movement has forced a legal (though not a moral) equivalency between their so-called ‘marriages’ and those of straight people upon society. They have, moreover, through the notion that their sexual orientation is morally equivalent to a race, imputed upon those who have resisted their ideas and values, the secular sin of bigotry and ‘hate;’ ones justly punished by the courts.

As a result, so-called ‘gay marriage’ and homosexuality have now become so normalized in our society that those who oppose them are almost routinely subject to censure by a pliable press and social media, and often branded as ‘unloving’ and ‘unchristian.’ Indeed, there is a fellow, named Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for handing out tracts against homosexuality at the so-called ‘gay pride’ parades in Toronto! 

Beyond that, several so-called ‘churches’ now fully embrace homosexuals as so-called ministers and leaders, some out of fear of being labelled bigots, others out of a misplaced concern that not overlooking their sin is somehow unchristian, unloving, or anti-Jesus, and others out of outright heresy. 

In effect, if not, in reality, these ideas have now softened the doctrine that sin, all sin, cannot be condoned and must be repented of, to one where certain sins are, indeed, okay because people were ‘born that way.’ This should not be. 

The Bible says in 1 John 5:17 that “all unrighteousness is sin.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 says “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God” and lists, as you know, homosexuals as one member of that group, among them adulterers, fornicators etc. 

Why these sins, in particular? Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 6:18 that “Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body but the immoral man sins against his own body.” Our bodies being “members of Christ” (verse 15) are also “a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (verse 18)

 The argument, therefore, that homosexuality, is a special kind of sin and is to be overlooked is spurious and wrong. Whether a person is ‘born that way’ or not is not the issue. I was, like you, born in sin, yet I am told to repent of them. I am, indeed, admonished to repent and seek Christ for salvation. But are we not to do the same to homosexuality? Are we to see the holy union of one man and one woman as merely a social convention, and not part of the grand design of God (looking to Christ as the bridegroom and the church as the bride), for fear of offending the sensibilities of those who persist in homosexuality, and their allies who enable and even encourage it?

Indeed, I ask you, Pastor, who left church feeling convicted of their sins this Sunday? I seriously doubt it was that homosexual couple. Should they have? That’s not my call. What I do believe, however, is that a good many Christians (like my bride and I) were left to wonder if, as followers of Christ, we can or even should stand against the sin of homosexuality and politely refuse to attend a so-called ‘gay marriage’ without the fear that this would mark them as bigots, self-righteous, unloving or even unchristian.

This should not be so. Like Jesus said “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:34).  Were Levi’s friends righteous or unrighteous? Arguably unrighteous, as Jesus said, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.” (Luke 5:31)

The celebration, therefore, and the reasons for Christ being there, was to call the unsaved to Himself. It may, again, have been Levi’s purpose, too, in having the Lord at his table. But what is the purpose of attending a so-called ‘gay wedding?’ Did not Levi host his reception FOR Christ, and not for sinners?

Indeed, it was Christ who was being honoured, not sinners. This event was meant to draw people to the Lord, perhaps much as Levi was, himself, drawn.

But what is the purpose of a so-called ‘gay marriage?’ Is it not to celebrate and honour the union of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? Is that right? Is it RIGHT to, in essence, celebrate sin; to effectively “call evil good and good evil” as Isaiah wrote?

No, of course not. Yet are you not celebrating that by attending such an event? This woman that you counselled was clearly burdened by the choice she had to make. I do not dare presume to mitigate the difficulty of it any more than I can presume to mitigate the difficulty that my friend, Pastor "J," had to face regarding his decision on attending his gay brother’s so-called “wedding.”

He did. That was troubling enough. But then his wife posted and practically bragged about this on her Facebook page, too; receiving the encouragement of their church members as a result.

For that reason, my bride and I had to stop attending his church, even though we only attended infrequently as he is in Fort Erie (we would go for Christmas, Good Friday/Easter, and a few other times); and this is a man I’ve known over 40 years, who performed the service at my wedding, and whose family (his father is also a pastor) helped guide my early faith. The reason for "J’s" decision was, I believe, motivated by the fear of alienating his brother, which is a great burden for anyone to carry. But in making the choice he did, and in allowing his wife to celebrate and promote this event on her FB page, they have, I fear, created in the mind of their church the view that homosexuality is not bad or perhaps not even a sin.

Don’t get me wrong, I love "J" and his family. But having decided to walk down this path I believe he has inadvertently compromised his ministry, if not his walk, with the Lord; having placed his fear of losing his brother over his fear of God. Out of a misguided sense of being ‘supportive’ of his brother, I fear that he has promoted and justified the idea that homosexuality is okay and/or not any different than any other sin.

It doesn’t matter if "J" did the service or not. What matters, and what I think should matter to every Christian, is that their presence validates (in the minds of others) the event, and acts as an encouragement for others to participate in it; unless your intention, or desire in attending,  is clearly to stand against unrighteousness and for sound doctrine, much as Mr. Whatcott’s presence at so-called ‘gay pride’ was.

"J's" presence was not, any more than this woman will be either. By telling her it was okay to stand by her friend I fear you have, regrettably, encouraged her to stand against sound doctrine, and against Christ Himself.  Moreover, by interpreting Luke 5:27-32 in the manner you have done, I believe, likewise, that you may have created more trouble for people already confused and worried about how to approach the subject of homosexuality as a spiritual and social challenge.

I don’t envy you for this, Pastor. Indeed, were it in my power, I would relieve you of this burden, for I tremble, in my heart, at the responsibility you carry every time you speak to the church, much as I do for my friend "J" when he speaks in his. But my burdens are different than yours and his, and each of us must learn how best carry our own crosses, with God’s help, while we live.

 Regarding homosexuality, though, the matter is very clear. It is a sin. Homosexuals who persist in homosexuality are not saved, much as those who persist in every kind sin are not saved either. It is one thing to stumble and backslide, it is quite another to justify that behaviour and call evil good and good evil, as many have done, to their eternal grief. That is what I believe any Christian is doing when they attend these events.

While I sympathize with those who struggle about attending, or not attending, any so-called any ‘gay wedding,’ I would counsel people differently, too. My advice to "J," or to that woman, if asked, would have been to affirm her/his love for their gay brother, sister, friend, etc., and ask them to respect the fact that, as a Christian, they could not attend a celebration that goes against their beliefs. If that person got mad and broke the relationship, that would be sad but it is also to be expected since the way of the Lord is narrow and not wide “and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14).

Christianity is not a popularity contest. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:8). He also said that “everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29). The latter may be cold comfort if the person you love walks out of your life because you will not agree with them or endorse what they want for do.

I know that loss, too, and no matter how many times it happens it does not get any easier. We invest our hearts and lives into people and to have them walk away because our expression of that love does not affirm their sin or their destructive lifestyle, is very painful and difficult. In this regard, I’m a lousy martyr and have no desire to lose those whom I consider closest to me. 

But, at the same time, I can say with confidence, that I would give them up and walk, if I had to, this world alone, friendless, hopeless, hated and condemned by all, rather than deny the power of Scripture or the truth of the Lord Jesus Himself. For what am I? A vapour. A blade of grass. When I arrived here, the world did not pause and stop, nor will it when I am gone. All that will remain of me is a memory, one forgotten by time itself.

This, too, Pastor, is a consequence of being a nobody. Today I spoke to you. Tomorrow it is forgotten. Tonight, I spend hours trying to write a sensible and fair letter. Tomorrow it is cast aside in the trash. I speak, I breathe, I use up the air, and when I am gone, all that disappears, lost amid time; ethereal like the vapour I am.

That is not self-pity, it is simply the truth. I have spoken that truth to you in person and now, again, by this letter; and as fully and as candidly as I could. Please forgive me, I ask you again, if you think it came from a position of moral or intellectual superiority; that was not my intention. I can only hope that you consider it, that’s all. And if you find any merit it in it, then I thank God I didn’t waste your time. If not, then at least I know I tried my best not to.

God bless.

I.M. Ulysses

Standing in the way of Sinners: Is Bill Whatcott right or wrong?

By I. M. Ulysses

The Bible says, in the very first Psalm, Psalm 1:1-2, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."The phrase "standeth" means or can be seen to mean according to Strong's Concordance, "to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear, rise up or against."

Is it, therefore, wrong for Bill Whatcott (or anyone who deems themself a Christian), to protest against these evils we see in our society, whether homosexuality, abortion or all manner of perversion? Is sharing the Gospel not also 'standing in the way of sinners' by declaring the "Good News" that salvation is near to them if they repent and reach for it? Ezekiel 33:8 says "When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Is Bill a 'Watchman?' Or are we not all 'watchmen' on some level? If so, therefore, are we also not in some ways guilty if we do not share the warning and the Gospel as we are commanded? Can you only share the 'Good News' without sharing the bad; knowledge of the sickness (bad news) and the cure (Good News)?

Christians need to reprove the church; those outside God will judge. That does not mean we are not to judge between right and wrong but to judge not based on mere appearances (John 7:24).

In my view, therefore, the question of protesting against sinful behaviour in the World is a question of attitude. If we protest to show how 'righteous' we are, we are failing God and our witness has no value. If we protest out of concern for the souls of these sinners (who are also deceiving many with their lies), we are glorifying God and fulfilling the commandment of Christ to share the Gospel.

Now, for the record, I'm not privy to Bill's heart. I do not know the deep secrets in it. I just cannot believe a man handing out tracts to those who publicly support homosexuality is motivated by hate instead of compassion for their souls. 

But say that someone thinks homosexuality is somehow 'ok' and they don't give a care about the fate of their souls, or their own. What about the other issue, the one regarding basic human rights (such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) that is also part of Bill's fight? If Canada now has a court system that routinely pulls back these rights in the name of 'tolerance,' or to protect people against 'hate' (however they define it), does it not make us all less free? Is not the very term 'hate speech' a subject of political dispute and based on current fashion rather than deep principles?

Twenty years ago, NO ONE would EVER dream of allowing so-called 'gay marriage' to be legal; and only a very small minority (gays) were upset about it. Also, the idea of 'trans' likewise was (and in my view should still be) seen as idiotic and on the cusp of insanity; a subject rightly kept out of serious public debate. Yet both now are seen as 'acceptable' and those disagreeing are immediately labelled bigots and subject to all manner of HATE and self-righteous anger by people who say they have no 'hate' or self righteousness at all!

And what of a major watershed event that happened in Toronto in 1981 that when a bunch of "bath houses" were raided, where gays were effectively having orgies? People rightly agreed that this behaviour was socially and morally wrong and these raids needed doing. That, however, also galvanized the so-called 'gay movement' and pushed forward their agenda, so much so that in 2016 the Toronto police issued an 'apology' for that raid, one I do not believe was necessary or even right to give.

Would or could any of these perverse ideas have been stopped if people protested loudly? Maybe, and maybe not; we cannot be sure of this because so few people did in the first place and the rest rolled over rather than fight against 'progress' or a misplaced sense of guilt.

In effect, therefore, we have all been treated like frogs in the water pot and now it has gone from warm to boil and no one knows how to get out. And when one person, in this case Bill, says 'hey, we need to turn this down' they are told to get back in the pot and have the lid closed over them.

So, yeah, on one level, standing in the way of sinners is wrong; God will judge them. But on another we cannot preach a Gospel of Grace without showing what that grace is for. Nor can we be free to do so if we let our liberties get quashed by the growing darkness of political correctness either.

Bill Whatcott is fighting against BOTH, but either one should be enough for anyone, gay or straight, Christian, or not, to support him and the principles for which he is willing to endure hardship and hate himself.

Sincerely,

I.M. Ulysses.

God does not need anything from us!

By I.M. Ulysses

Dear friends,

I have been deeply troubled in my spirit for many years about a pernicious and vile lie that has been going around. Though not stated openly, this lie, this false doctrine, this cancer on truth and corrosion on sound doctrine is evident in the teachings of many modern churches and ministries. That doctrine is the idea that somehow, in some small way, "God needs us."

Let's think about that for a moment. Does God 'need' us? On the surface, such a statement should evoke in us the response 'of course not!.'  And yet churches on an almost weekly basis spread the idea that God 'created us for relationship with Him.'

I'm not sure where that idea comes from as it is not found anywhere in scripture to my knowledge or understanding. Moreover the statement suggests, in my mind, that God created us because He was, by implication, lacking something that only His creation could provide.

This immediately launches us into what I call the 'lonely God' idea. That somehow, in the pantheon of angels that the Lord created before us, even these were insufficient to keep Him company. Or that He likewise created the angels because the unity of His person, within the Divine Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was, likewise, insufficient for Him either.

All this is baloney. God needs NOTHING from us or from any part of His Creation. He is not dependent upon what He created but rather Creation is dependent upon Him. Nor did He, in ANY WAY a person can imagine, create us for 'a relationship with Him.'

This last bit is particularly galling to me for the simple reality that it is not truth in any way, and I challenge ANYONE to find Biblical evidence to suggest otherwise!  Indeed what it is is MARKETING; the pretty bow on a package called 'religion' that keeps people coming into churches who do not want to be told, day in and day out, that they need God, that they are evil, and need a saviour.

From these sorts of lies do we get God-less phrases like 'churched.' CHURCHED!  Not 'saved.' Not 'instructed.' Not 'discipled.' No, those words are, likewise, too hard on the soft ears of weak people bound for hell. No, better to make up a word, like 'churched' which means...what? Walking by a church? Walking in a church? Attending a service? How is anyone 'churched?'

The truth is that no one is 'churched' because it is not a real word. Like the doctrine or idea that God created us for a relationship with Him, it's baloney and marketing. Indeed Jesus never said 'go out and church the world.' He said make disciples of every nation (Matthew 28:19).

So why do this? Why make 'disciples of every nation?' Why does God want us to partake in a great work finished and begun at Calvary by His Son Jesus Christ our Lord? What, in short, does God need from us?

During a debate with a friend of mine much of these issues came up. Though I do not know for a fact that my friend is a Believer he brought up the single greatest dilemma that both those who are seeking answers to the questions 'why are we here' and "if God loves us, why does He send people to hell."

"Ah yes, the eternal Christ dilemma..." he said.  "If God is so eager for our friendship that he would enter our world, share our humanity, and bear our punishment on the cross, how could he feel it is appropriate to send anyone to endless judgment? I would sooner place my faith in Gandalf, Beowulf or Forrest Gump."

This may seem harsh in the ears of Christians but I cannot believe that this was my friend's intention. He was simply re-iterating what others have over the centuries since Jesus Christ's birth, death and resurrection, and I urge you to see it as that.

How does one reply to that though? My own assumption is that many would use the tired, false and childish line old lines about getting saved gets you a  'relationship with God' and 'God loves us and wants us saved.'

Aside from the fact that this is really not true and really, really stupid, it does not answer the legitimate question that my friend has, which is, to distill it down, 'If God loves us the world, why does He send people to hell?"

To answer that, many fall back on the other old trick of yammering about 'free will' which, again, is hard if not possible to prove in Scripture, if not utterly contradictory to it! That is often followed by the 'appeal' of Jesus dying to save us from our horrible fate too.

So now you have the typical Christian story; a sinful, willful, fallen race of beings facing damnation. A loving God reaching out to us through the death and suffer of His Son to save us because He "wants a relationship" with us.

Poor Jehovah! Wow. Breaks my heart to believe that there exists in Heaven a divine, holy, lonely being that is TRULY and UTTERLY PATHETIC! I mean, what kind of a LOSER GOD is it that makes His own Son die a horrible death so that He could save a bunch of WORTHLESS SINNERS who are RIGHT CANDIDATES FOR HIS WRATH? Because He's desperate to have a 'relationship' with them? Because he NEEDS them to have a relationship with them?

No offense but this is the worst, most God-less bunch a TRASH I can imagine. It is not worthy of our God, or of His divine nature, to even suggest it. And yet, THIS IS EXACTLY what is being preached, in subtle but similar ways, ALL OVER THE WORLD by weak preachers, in weak churches, trying desperately to keep their congregations and their  jobs while doing raising weak-minded and easily misled Christians; Christians who are not taught to think but to quote scripture with only a surface understanding!

Here's the punchline though, and one I shared with my friend too: 

1. "God doesn't need anything from us. Salvation is an expression of His holiness not his 'need' of us. He is not a 'lonely' God or any weak-Christian stuff you've been taught or led to believe. That's the problem with so-called 'churches' today; the weak God they serve is not my God or even the Biblical God. 
2. They make the Lord out to be a beggar instead of  holy being. They make salvation as a 'plea' for our souls because 'poor old Jehovah, He loves us and gosh, really REALLY wants to just be our buddy. So much so He let Himself be tortured and nailed to a cross!"
3. IT'S FREAKING BUNK! ALL OF IT! No wonder people turn from Him!  The fact is God is GOOD. We are saved by the reality of that fact ALONE and NOTHING ELSE!  The Lord is NOT some kind of codependent spiritual being!  HE IS HOLY and that is a concept few people can grasp, even though it says in the Bible that His ways are FAR ABOVE our ways. But we dilute that to make God 'appealing' to worldly people in the blind hope that they will some how 'take pity' upon God and believe in Him! 
4. Guess what, my friend (and I mean this sincerely)? IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF BALONEY! Guess also what? While God is not happy with people going to hell, it doesn't stop Him from sending them there! 
5. The Bible says "Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known." (Psalm 106:8). It also says "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." (1 John 2:12). 
6. It doesn't say He saved them because He 'loved' them or "needed a friend." He did it because of WHO HE IS and THAT has ZERO, and NOTHING TO DO WITH US beyond the fact we are all sinners and ARE FACING DAMNATION apart from HIS GRACE.
7. So, yeah, don't expect God to come begging on Judgement Day for a friend as He damns people to hell with tears or something like it. It won't happen. His own Son died so we could avoid that fate and yet people reject, mock or spit at the idea. Fine with me and I'm sure it's fine with Him. Believe me, if someone turns their back on a gift, I won't go begging for them to take it; I'll give it to someone else. Or I'll keep it. But its important to know its MY GIFT. I bought it. No one deserves it. And if I give it, it's an expression of MY HEART and of who I AM; not  a bribe to make a friend because I'm some pathetic codependent sad sack like weak people and churches make God out to be! 
8. Like I said, IT IS ALL BUNK! Sadly people won't find out until they die and then it's too late. Peace."

This is the God I worship! This is the God I believe in. This is the God of the BIBLE! He is complete in and of Himself and always was! He created us because that is what a Creator DOES! He saved us because that is what A SAVIOUR DOES. In short GOD IS GOOD and HE DOES GOOD.

God is LOVE and He manifests that love in mercy to even vile creatures like us. But that goodness and love is EXTERNAL also to us. It existed and exists APART from us, NOT BECAUSE OF US!

If we are the bearers of that Goodness it is not because He 'needs' us or 'wants a relationship with us.' It is to bear witness to that because we are saved FOR HIS NAME'S sake. NOT OUR OWN or because we have something within us that He cannot provide for himself.

Indeed, even the love we have for God is a gift He puts in our hearts to give to Him. Faith, likewise, is a gift we receive from Him and that gift leads to salvation.

So does God need anything from us? NO. NOTHING. Not even 'relationships' as He has and has had a perfect relationship, including perfect love, perfect unity, and perfect harmony, within Himself in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy and I urge and pray that all churches engaged in such heresies to cease and desist in them and return to a proper understanding of the Lord and His Word too.

In Christ,
I.M. Ulysses.