A Little Clarification on a Dirty Shame

Rather than rewrite this post I am going to paste the letter I sent to Jimmie on this matter. I have had a little more time to reflect and look at the matter. After this careful consideration I had to modify my position a little from my initial post.



Jimmie,

You are probably not as surprised as I am to find out that you know the people involved. In that light I have some questions concerning all of this.

My only uneasiness in this whole incident is the position of the female pastor (Wendy Bailey) in this. From my reading on this she seems to have no problem with homosexuals continuing in their “relationships” even after they have received Jesus as their savior. Maybe I have read something incorrectly, but that is what I have concluded in my limited knowledge of this lady. My problem is that this is encouraging sin and the Word does not mince its words on the subject of homosexuality.

I have no problem with this ministry on its face value. We should all be striving to reach all people in their sin, and I truly believe this was Bro. Haney’s intention, but I think he may have chosen the wrong person to partner with in this effort. I will tell you why in a moment. I also know the convention leadership handled this in an unbiblical manner, and are wrong for their legalistic view on these matters, all in the attempt to distance themselves from anything that may make it seem like they endorse the homosexual lifestyle.

Ok, why do I think Bro. Haney made a wrong choice? This falls under my non-essential doctrine philosophy. Basically that all the denominations should set aside non-essential doctrines to work with each other in cooperative efforts to spread the gospel. The thing is that under this philosophy if the Word says unequivocally that something is as sin there is no wiggle room for debate and if someone claims otherwise then it is tantamount to heresy. This is my only issue with the whole affair on Bro. Haney’s side. Was his refusal to disassociate with the ministry in question reason enough to ostracize the whole church without a fair hearing? It was most definitely not. It should have been brought before the local church elders and the congregation to see if they wished to continue the partnership with Wendy Bailey and Eklektos.

Just so Wendy’s possition is clear this is quoted from Tom’s Blog from the quote from Wendy’s blog.

“I realize that many people differ on the Biblical interpretation of Scripture surrounding issues of homosexuality. My hope is that Eklektos will minister within that controversy and seek Christ in the midst of it. I acknowledge that even the most faithful Christians can disagree over whether homosexuality is sinful — Randy and I differ on that issue — but this ministry is here to reach people who are typically ostracized and hurt by the Church, and to offer them a loving and non-judgemental community in which to seek Christ and grow in discipleship. Even if we all agreed that homosexuality was a sin, should a church require gay and lesbians to be celibate or “convert” to heterosexuality? No. Not anymore than the church should require divorced people to reconcile, wealthy people to divest their money from companies that promote unrepentant consumerism, or gluttonous people to go on diets.” Wendy Bailey
The emphasis added is mine.
I am probably rambling on about this now. I know that Tom and yourself are close to this issue because Bro. Haney is your friend so your inclination is to rush to your friends defense, and you should, I will be right there with you concerning how the convention handled this issue, but I cannot defend his decision to work with Wendy Bailey based upon her own words.

In His Name,