Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

That was a time when, as Mitchell, 46, explains, the position of the church on marriage was classically evangelical. People who were not heterosexual could be members, but they could not serve on the board, lead worship or other church groups. They could be baptized and receive communion, but they could not be married or have their children dedicated.....


With those words, GracePointe became one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to openly stand for full equality and inclusion of the LGBTQ community, along with EastLake Community Church near Seattle. The results of the conversation, he told his congregation, were not unanimous or exhaustive, but they were sufficient.

http://time.com/3687368/gracepointe-...iage-equality/

BOSM

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

No surprise here. Some years ago, maybe four or five or more, Stan was the guest preacher at a gay Pentecostal church in Arkansas. I had a hard time believing it at the time but there was a picture of Stan and his wife with the pastor and his "husband" of that church as well as information about the meeting on the internet at the time.

I personally know people who have left Stan's church over the gay issue but I am sure his position will appeal to many who don't know the bible and want to follow our culture down the toilet.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Or don't really care about the bible. So sad

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

(vomit)

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Wait and see when sooner or later old Stan boy comes around with his boyfriend. :heeheehee

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

:vomit

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

On that point you are wrong. He has the opposite problem or at least did. Too much attraction to the opposite sex.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Brother you watch, old Stan is going to get real comfortable with his new brothers. He had a problem with sleeping with the sheep, when sex addicts go this way, they end up with a ram.

Maybe a few?

:vomit

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

It's a spirit from hell that he has INVITED into his life and he will pay in this life.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Sad, really sad, lust drives the weak minded individual into situations he can never come back from. Behind the pulpit, betraying the wife, and children. No conscience, no care. Then when I bring up that these individuals will sleep with man, woman, and children, everyone goes "nooooo."

There was a time you all would of said that there was no way a Homosexual Church would be the norm, let alone a Pentecostal one (if you can even call it that). Now look where we are. So, don't be surprised if Mr Stan goes off with boyfriend.

:vomit

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I do not understand how there can be a "gay pentecostal church".

Unless "pentecostal" has come to mean merely catharsis, music, and volume instead of salvation, deliverance, and holiness... oh wait...

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Over compensating for latent homosexual feelings?

BUICK

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

The way I've often heard it described, is that Pentecostal describes our worship, Apostolic describes our teachings.

While I'm not familiar with this Stan Mitchell, he'll not only pay in this life, but also in the next. For if he leads people into unrighteousness, he'll have to answer to God for their souls being lost. :depressed

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

If you do a google search I am sure you can find the "bible study" that some of the gay pentecostal churches use to justify it. It is put out I think by a gay pentecostal organization of churches that is made up of a lot of ex UPC people. I can't remember the name of it but "affirming" is in the name of the org. There are pastors / churches in Indiana, Florida, etc. A few years ago when there was a thread or more on here about the subject I looked some of the churches websites up.

One of the pastors told his story about how he had been a UPC evangelist or pastor and had been married twice before coming out of the closet. Told the "sweet" love story of how he met his current "partner". Which brings up a point. I have wondered how these gay pastors justified not being married to their partner (at least before so many states legalized gay marriage). I am assuming they get around it by having a "wedding" ceremony that is not recognized by the state.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

If you do a google search I am sure you can find the "bible study" that some of the gay pentecostal churches use to justify it. It is put out I think by a gay pentecostal organization of churches that is made up of a lot of ex UPC people. I can't remember the name of it but "affirming" is in the name of the org. There are pastors / churches in Indiana, Florida, etc. A few years ago when there was a thread or more on here about the subject I looked some of the churches websites up.

One of the pastors told his story about how he had been a UPC evangelist or pastor and had been married twice before coming out of the closet. Told the "sweet" love story of how he met his current "partner". Which brings up a point. I have wondered how these gay pastors justified not being married to their partner (at least before so many states legalized gay marriage). I am assuming they get around it by having a "wedding" ceremony that is not recognized by the state.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I was shocked to see some of my bible studies were on a gay pentecostal website. I immediately told them to remove them ASAP.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

You know...I wonder if we stress tongues too much. Im convinced not everyone has really spoken in tongues but faked it.

I say that because of what I see happening in alters where I am convinced "seekers" are being pressed to just "trip over the Ls" in Halleluyah

We had an evangelist at my church once and he asked me about a brother there, if he had the Spirit. I told him that I did not know for sure. He used to go to a Charismatic church that I know of where the Pastor would invite people once a month to come to the front and speak in tongues. He would instruct them how to speak in tongues...literally

So this same man I would watch with seekers walk up and go "Halllalalalala..Say it! Halalalalala. Say it" and I told that to the evangelist and his words shocked me..He said "Well it does not matter how they get it as long as they get it"

Many of these "gay pentecostals" say they have the gifts...maybe because they "speak in tongues" they believe everything is ok between them and God?

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

First the homo sympathizers in the pulpit, then the homos in the pulpit! What next? Bestiality?

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Churches need to be more accepting of gay people. I'm appalled at the hatred expressed in this threat towards homosexuals. They are souls in need of a savior, too.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Dante, you read too much into the comments. I do not know these posters personally, yet can say with assurance that no one hates the homosexual!

Every living person who has ever walked the face of this planet has sinned in some area of life and has been in need of forgiveness and a Savior.

BUT the Scripture is clear...the act of homosexuality is sin. Period.

Therefore, any so-called pastor who opens their door for anyone in sin, be it a drunkard, liar, thief, homosexual, womanizer...you name it...if they are allowed to work in any form of ministry while in sin, it is flat-out wrong.

The work of God is a precious thing. From the usher to the pulpit, there MUST be an accounting.

Stan Mitchell is wrong. In my opinion he is an apostate, and I make NO apology for saying so.

But to say that the posters on this thread are haters of SM or homosexuals is unfair.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Yes, they are. They're still living in sin, however, and need to have this pointed out. If we just sit back and say "okay, you're gay, we accept that", we do them no justice. No sin should be accepted, especially not from the pulpit. If a "pastor" was living in adultery, that should also be condemned.

If the pastor was a pedophile, would you not want us to condemn it, or should we restrain ourselves because he's a "soul in need of a savior"? Ultimately, it's no different because God hates all sin.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

:thumbsup

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

It saddens me to see anyone that in an attempt to show grace and be inclusive of non-conformists, have lost their scriptural compass! The pendulum for Stan Mitchell has swung too far in the opposite direction, IMO.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I didn't see that. I saw an unwillingness to not recognize it as a sin but nobody would deny they need a savior too. Thats the whole point here. This Pastor is not preaching they need to repent of homosexuality

Pastor Dan Scott responds
 

Wishy Washy response. He says he disagreed with him but tries to "explain" how Stan got there and how much he respects Stan for taking the stand???

Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
As many of you have now learned from the local or national news, Pastor Stan Mitchell, the pastor of Nashville’s GracePointe Church, has decided to openly endorse homosexual practice and marriage. Because he is a pastor of a different congregation and embraces a different theology than I do, I have seen little reason to make any public comment about this. Nonetheless, I have decided to write a pastoral letter to address it the best I can

Read the rest here
http://www.christchurchnashville.org...rch-nashville/

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Threats? Hatred? Not by me, but I'll tell you what....

You go start a church, and you go invite everyone of them to fill your pews. :)

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Yes exactly. I fear there is an awful lot of people pretending to be pentecostal in our ranks and this would explain QUITE A LOT.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

In his sermon last Sunday my pastor talked about recently meeting and talking to a man that goes to our church. He said the guy is about 50 years old and a big strapping handsome man (my words because I don't remember exactly how he said it). He was surprised that in conversation the man told him that he was homosexual. Pastor asked him how he deals with it. The man told him that he has never been attracted to women but that he believes in and has dedicated himself to the bible and he understands homosexuality is wrong so he has remained celibate his entire life and plans on doing so until he dies. I think you have to admire somebody who has that commitment to following Christ and denying their fleshly desires. I am sure this man would be thrilled if God delivered him of his fleshly desires but the reality is that many times God chooses to leave people with their "thorn in the flesh" but will empower them to be victorious over it if they will allow Him.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I agree..the same goes for both homosexual and heterosexual, if you really want to live for God

Having said that...if same sex attraction is a learned behavior, there has to be a way to sort of undo it or retrain the brain

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

If homosexuality is a chose and I believe that it is a very bad choice, why should I be looked on unfavorably because I don't agree with a person's bad chose.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I wouldn't be surprised if biology does play a role. We are fallen creatures and, biologically speaking, sin has rewired us to experience any number of infirmities and conditions that were alien to man prior to the fall.

Is it possible that homosexuality, at least in some cases, might be classified as an "infirmity"?

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

INFIRMITY

in-fur'-mi-ti (dawah, chalah, machalah; astheneia): This word is used either in the singular or plural (the latter only in the New Testament) and with somewhat varying signification. (1) As sickness or bodily disease (Jn 5:5; Mt 8:17; Lk 5:15; 8:2; 1 Tim 5:23). In the last instance the affections seem to have been dyspeptic, the discomfort of which might be relieved by alcohol, although the disease would not be cured thereby. It is probable that this condition of body produced a certain slackness in Timothy's work against which Paul several times cautions him. In Lk 7:21 the Revised Version (British and American) has "diseases," which is a better rendering of the Greek noson, used here, than the King James Version "infirmities." (2) Imperfections or weaknesses of body (Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 11:30 the King James Version; 2 Cor 12:5,9,10 the King James Version; Gal 4:13). (3) Moral or spiritual weaknesses and defects (Ps 77:10; Rom 8:26; 15:1; Heb 4:15; 5:2; 7:28). In this sense it is often used by the classic English writers, as in Milton's "the last infirmity of noble minds"; compare Caesar, IV, iii, 86. The infirmity which a man of resolution can keep under by his will (Prov 18:14) may be either moral or physical. In Lk 13:11 the woman's physical infirmity is ascribed to the influence of an evil spirit.
Alexander Macalister

Here we see that an "infirmity" can be a physical condition, moral weakness, or the influence of an evil spirit. Might there be a condition wherein two, or all three, of these circumstances might come into play?

For example, due to biological/genetic make up one responds to same gender pheromones and pleasure centers of the brain are activated. However, the individual doesn't respond to opposite gender pheromones. This causes a sense of "physical attraction" for the same gender as it relates to neurologic chemistry. As a result the person is essentially predisposed to moral weakness as it relates to homosexuality. Being predisposed to this behavior, and engaging in it with abandon, might then lead to demonic oppression and the possibility possession.

Is it possible that by looking at this as though it has to be "either/or" (biological or a choice) we might be creating a false dichotomy? In doing so we might be missing the realization that therapy will do little for the homosexual. They need a physical "healing", spiritual restoration, and possibly deliverance from demonic influences.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Does the bible identify it as an infirmity? Or as sin?

Does the bible even recognize what today is defined by godless humanists as "homosexuality"? Or does it recognize something else the sodomites and their humanist enablers don't want to recognize?

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I was at a dinner party last night of some old friends and acquaintances and was sitting next to a woman I have known for many years whose family recently left Stan's church over this issue. She says that when he says in his sermon that is at time.com that the church has discussed this for many years that is not true. That he may have discussed it with a few "yes" people at the church but it was not a topic of discussion with the church overall so many people were shocked.

I told her I wasn't shocked because I had heard about him preaching at a gay Pentecostal church several years ago and when I didn't believe it then I either googled or someone sent me the link to a picture of Stan and his wife with that gay pastor and his "husband" as well as a write up about Stan preaching there. Apparently Stan had not publicized that trip to his church folks.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Key piece of info there! Whoops!

They cannot think homosexuality is not sin though. That's the point. These gay inclusive churches say it's not a sin.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

You and Dante both make good points. Our church strives to be a loving place for all sinners regardless of their sins. However we make it clear that it is not Gods will for any of us to live in sin and following Christ means conforming our will to His as the Bible tells us.

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

I've become friends with some rather interesting Quaker folks. I like Quakers. They give me a lot of food for thought. These people are deeply spiritual, non-legalistic (to the extreme), and they live honest, peaceful, prayerful, and quiet lives. However, when discussing this issue once they had an interesting perspective that I believe has an element of truth to it.

They do not believe that sexuality, in any form in and of itself, is "sinful". They believe that what makes a given sex act sinful is what makes anything else sinful, the lack of love. Sexuality without love is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. From their perspective, all are loved and welcomed by God as they are through an infinite grace provided by Jesus Christ. The highest calling being love.

Thus what I've noticed is that for most "inclusive" churches the notion of what is sin and what isn't based on a given act or behavior. It is the heart's intention within the action.

The element of truth that I find in all of this is that this truly does essentially define "sin" at its core. Sin is that which is void of love for God and/or love for others. It is definitely anything that is inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing. The believer's highest calling is indeed love. Where I differ with them here is... I believe that some sexual behaviors, such as homosexuality (as I understand it), are inherently harmful, selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing and that this is why God forbade them.

I do believe that anyone should be welcomed to come to Christ, regardless of the struggles with sin that they might face. Christ tends to clean one's life up significantly if one is dedicated to being conformed into the image and likeness of Jesus. Ultimately we, as individuals, will answer to God for our faith and our lives. I can only seek to listen and follow the Spirit's leading in my life and refrain from hating others based on how they feel God leading them. I don't hate anyone. But... I do not always agree with them.

But I will ask this. If one truly believes that their behavior isn't a sin, I ask that they deeply consider this and do some soul searching. Is their behavior/relationship harmful selfish, exploitive, degrading, self-abusive, coercive, and/or dehumanizing in any manner? I am not fully convinced that a homosexual can answer yes to this this question.

And if they can... perhaps they should consider being Quakers. lol

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Please share more of your thoughts. It sounds interesting.

My only point was that an infirmity can be a moral or spiritual weakness and/or defect (Ps 77:10; Rom 8:26; 15:1; Heb 4:15; 5:2; 7:28). Wouldn't a moral or spiritual weakness or defect be a "sin"?

Re: Stan Mitchell's Church Gay Inclusive?
 

Ummm... like oatmeal? lol

I cant agree with that, because Romans 1 associated homosexuality with "vile affection" which involves alleged love.