CeCe Winans under fire for singing at Gay church

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Sandra

Cece Winans is a woman of integrity and 100% against homosexuality. She stated that she would like for us to do a tour together. I would be proud to travel with her, she loves God and stands up for him in secular settings.

You didn't address the issue above at all...

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All sinners think their sin is acceptable to God.

We have plenty of "conservative" Apostolic churches that advocate murder and lie and we have been socially conditioned to accept it. For example, most conservative churches radically support the death penalty because they see it in the OT. They also support Christians being actively involved in combative military actions. Yet in America up to 11% of those executed have been later found to have been innocent of the crimes charged, had received insufficient legal counsel, or a fair and legal trial. If just one innocent person is executed the system has innocent blood on it's hands.

In just the Iraq War an estimated 80,000 non-combatant civilians have been killed as collateral damage or in the cross-fire between coalition troops and insurgents. Not to mention the war's justification is questionable. We don't question these things as Christians. Our churches don't have the courage to stand up to the "conservative political correctness" and command a purely "Christian Ethos". Early Pentecostal pioneers united and began licensing to qualify for consciencious objector status. They also openly spoke out against war. It was said by one early 20th century Christian leader that Christians shouldn't sacrifice their children on the altar of the modern Moloch of patriotism...because we are not of this world, the last thing we should be are pawns in it's wars.

Also most Christians oppose any efforts to make sure that all Americans have the health insurance they need to survive. Thousands of Americans die each year because they just don't have medical insurance. Christians attack, denigrate, denounce, mock, and rebuke anyone who would advocate finding a way to cover all Americans.

In short...most conservative churches in America only believe in the sanctity of life in relation to one issue...abortion. The unborn are defended...the innocent sentenced to death is accepted, the high cost of life found in the wake of war is accepted, the loss of life from treatable sickness and disease is accepted. What stings the conscience of so many is that the church would have defended all these people and sought to protect their lives before they were born...but once born the church shifts into situational ethics accepting their deaths in so many other circumstances.

Oh well. My point is that though the perspective isn't popular, many of our churches do allow murder. Then they pull out their Bibles and excuse themselves.

It's all the same as the gay church in question. But for the record I certainly wouldn't have attended the gay church.

Under the OT administration it was 'murder' to execute someone and there were not just wars? Seems that Hebrews 2 the writer refers to the OT law and penalties being "just". This isn't a culture justice that changes according to convention.

Any law can be abused but you would throw all penalties out due to the misuse by fallible humans.

[Aquila]

I think CeCe meant well and was unwise about her choice to do this. Until she openly endorces this I'd chalk it up to bad judgment on this occasion.

I think discussion of this subject could continue in a way that doesn't indict CeCe for this lapse in judgment but rather addresses the points of Affirmation Theology. These individuals actually believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is acceptable within certain parameters. They use various passages and aspects of language to support their theological position.

The tenents of their theology follows the line of these concepts that they claim are arrived at through study of the Scriptures...

-They see the story of Sodom as a case illustrating the threat of gang rape not strictly homosexuality in general. They point out that this sin is repeated in Judges 19 where the crowd wishes to rape the Levite but instead are allowed to rape his concubine. They claim that this illustrates a crime of violence not a committed homosexual relatinoship.

-They believe that the laws against homosexuality in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually part of Israel's holiness code and are no longer binding such as the eating of shell fish, wearing blended fabrics, touching a woman during mensturation, etc. Some have attempted to linguistically prove that these laws in the Law of Moses were aimed at addressing the specific pagan practices of enslaving men, castrating them, and using them as personal or temple sex slaves. Israel eventually did use these prostitutes in the Temple of Jehovah in the books of I Kings and II Kings. They claim homosexuality in general isn't the subject of the text but rather the use of male sex slaves or prostitutes.

-They claim that the Bible views three homosexual relationships in a positive light. The first point to David and Jonathan who lived together in Saul's house when Saul was King. They claim that David and Jonathan's souls were knit together and a sexual relationship is indicated in Saul's accusation against Jonathan sexually shaming his mother by maintaining his relationship with David. They continue in this line of thought underscoring David and Jonathan's embracing, weeping, and kissing. They attempt to use the Hebrew language to insinuate that David and Jonathan had a sexual encounter at one moment when David "exceeded" which they claim is a Hebrew term used for male arousal. They conclude with how David mourned the death of Jonathan stating, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

-These homosexual churches also claim that Ruth and Naomi may have had a sexual dimension to their relationship. They statet that the words used in their covenant of partnership reflect a covenant of marriage, "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.(NIV)". They are forced to admit that beyond this there is absolutely no indication that they were physically intimate.

-They also claim that Daniel and Ashpenaz are another incident. They claim that Daniel 1:9's wording, "favour and tender love" (chesed v’rachamim) can be translated "mercy and physical love."

-They believe that the Roman centurian's servant in the Gospels was the Roman centuran's male companion as was common among centurians seeing that Roman law forbid them to marry or have children. They claim that Jesus heals this man's servant without condemning the relationship.

-They claim Jesus never mentions homosexuality in his teachings as found in the Gospels.

-They claim that in Romans 1 Paul was refering to straight married couples participating in homosexual acts during the debaucheries performed in Roman temples not homosexuality in general.

-They claim that the language used in the Epistles addressing homosexuality specifically condemn male prostitution and pediphilia not homosexuality in general.

Let's not personally judge CeCe or others...let's examine and refute their theology.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think CeCe meant well and was unwise about her choice to do this. Until she openly endorces this I'd chalk it up to bad judgment on this occasion.

I think discussion of this subject could continue in a way that doesn't indict CeCe for this lapse in judgment by addressing the points of Affirmation Theology. These individuals actually believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is acceptable within certain parameters. They use various passages and aspects of language to support their theological position.

The tenents of their theology follows the line of these concepts that they claim are arrived at through study of the Scriptures...

-They see the story of Sodom as a case illustrating the threat of gang rape not strictly homosexuality in general. They point out that this sin is repeated in Judges 19 where the crowd wishes to rape the Levite but instead are allowed to rape his concubine. They claim that this illustrates a crime of violence not a committed homosexual relatinoship.

-They believe that the laws against homosexuality in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are actually part of Israel's holiness code and are no longer binding such as the eating of shell fish, wearing blended fabrics, touching a woman during mensturation, etc. Some have attempted to linguistically prove that these laws in the Law of Moses were aimed at addressing the specific pagan practices of enslaving men, castrating them, and using them as personal or temple sex slaves. Israel eventually did use these prostitutes in the Temple of Jehovah in the books of I Kings and II Kings. They claim homosexuality in general isn't the subject of the text but rather the use of male sex slaves or prostitutes.

-They claim that the Bible views two homosexual relationships in a positive light. The first point to David and Jonathan who lived together in Saul's house when Saul was King. They claim that David and Jonathan's souls were knit together and a sexual relationship is indicated in Saul's accusation against Jonathan sexually shaming his mother by maintaining his relationship with David. They continue in this line of thought underscoring David and Jonathan's embracing, weeping, and kissing. They attempt to use the Hebrew language to insinuate that David and Jonathan had a sexual encounter at one moment when David "exceeded" which they claim is a Hebrew term used for male arousal. They conclude with how David mourned the death of Jonathan stating, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

-These homosexual churches also claim that Ruth and Naomi may have had a sexual dimension to their relationship. They statet that the words used in their covenant of partnership reflect a covenant of marriage, "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.(NIV)". They are forced to admit that beyond this there is absolutely no indication that they were physically intimate.

-They also claim that Daniel and Ashpenaz are another incident. They claim that Daniel 1:9's wording, "favour and tender love" (chesed v’rachamim) can be translated "mercy and physical love."

-They believe that the Roman centurian's servant in the Gospels was the Roman centuran's male companion as was common among centurians seeing that Roman law forbid them to marry or have children. They claim that Jesus heals this man's servant without condemning the relationship.

-They claim Jesus never mentions homosexuality in his teachings as found in the Gospels.

-They claim that in Romans 1 Paul was refering to straight couples participating in homosexual acts during the debaucheries performed in Roman temples not homosexuality in general.

-They claim that the language used in the Epistles addressing homosexuality specifically condemn male prostitution and pediphilia not homosexuality in general.

Let's not personally judge CeCe or others...let's examine and refute their theology.

My concern is the lack of judgment she is showing. I hope that's what it is. I hope it's not an issue that they are a legitimate church and this is a legitimate, albeit, alternate way to worship.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Under the OT administration it was 'murder' to execute someone and there were not just wars? Seems that Hebrews 2 the writer refers to the OT law and penalties being "just". This isn't a culture justice that changes according to convention.

Any law can be abused but you would throw all penalties out due to the misuse by fallible humans.

First, God's choice to institute execution among his people was necessary seeing that God's focus was a nation. I'm not saying that the death penalty isn't necessary. I'm saying that we should view it with extreme reserve and always remind ourselves that we aren't ancient Israel and that our system is often flawed. We therefore should advocate that all measures be taken to save the life of the condemned on the grounds that they may indeed be innocent. When DNA evidence or outright confessions are made perhaps it's more justifiable. Again, I'm not against the death penalty. I just have reservations against a wholesale embrace of it. I see it as incongruous to support prison ministry and mercy...and yet support the death penalty wholesale. Typically the death penalty is persued in a spirit of revenge not justice. This is why we've executed some who were innocent. Revenge can bring a mad rush to judgment that clouds justice. So in short I have reservations about the death penalty, I feel we should always advocate on the side of mercy, teach forgiveness no matter how difficult, and even when the condemned are executed...I believe that a Christian shouldn't flip the switch but rather close their eyes and pray that it be fast for the sake of the condemned. Do they deserve it? Absolutely not. My human nature says, "Fry 'em!" But that's my flesh. My spirit sees a soul. It sees the death penalty as a final tragedy in the situation. Two tragedies...the loss of the victime...and the loss of the condemned.

As for Israel's wars. You will remember that in the beginning God himself defended Israel supernaturally. When Israel did march to war they marched under the DIRECT order from God as spoken through the prophets. They weren't sent by a President who counseled with staff. It was ordered by God himself. Also again, God was focused upon a nation. Today he is focused on us as individual people called out from the nations. Therefore these wars don't compare to war today. To continue, after Israel grew in power and demanded a king God slowy began backing away from being the defender of the nation. The prophet Samuel even warned them that a king would use their children to wage wars and serve his interests. From that point forward Israel's protection was increasingly in their own hands until God completely turned them over to their enemies culminating in what happened in the year 70 AD. War is the scourge of humanity.

Also consider how governments have been known to lie to justify war. How does a Christian know when they are truly engaged in a justified military action? When a Christian participates in this world's military they accept being pawns of the government that can be used in an unjustified manner. Even in Hilter's Germany the average German soldier believed the Allies were out to destroy the German Fatherland and their beloved culture and history. Lies abounded in Hitler's propaganda. Often they just wanted to preserve what they felt the Allies would destroy. When Hitler invaded a country he never said, "We'll invade them though they did us no harm." No, Hitler always claimed the nations he invaded served as threats to his Germany and that pre-emptive action was necessary to preserve the German state from enemies who hated her. Can a Christian truly "trust" fallen worldly governments to always act righteously? No. Could you see an American Apostolic serving in the American military meeting a foreign Apostolic serving in his nation's military meeting on the battlefield killing eachother, each believing the other nation is the aggressor? No. Therefore I believe we should refrain from allowing ourselves to be pawns in this world's wars. If any Christian participates in the military surely it would be best to serve in a non-combatant fashion. But still the ethical questions of possibly participating in an unjustified war of national self interest should cause us pause and consideration.

Also consider that civilians caught in the crossfire, manipulated, beaten, and interrogated often walk away having paid the highest cost of war. In Iraq it's estimated that tens of thousands of civilians (men, women, and children) have been killed. War is often presented with patriotism, glamor, valor, and glory...it's reality is rarely told. How can we advocate that Christians shouldn't attend movie theaters because of the sexual content, rape, violence, murder, and madness portrayed...yet advocate that Christians participate with war in real life? All these things are in abundance in the shadows of war.

Since God is no longer focused on building a nation but rather a called out people, much of what was done in the OT isn't applicable but rather serves as spiritual types and shadows. Today we do not violently wage war in the flesh...we wage war in the spirit through preaching and teaching God's Word in a lost and fallen world.

We should stand and speak regarding the value of life in every context. Life is either sacred or it isn't.

But Dave, this thread is about CeCe and churches with gay affirming theology. Let's stay on topic.

[Twisp]

The major point in this whole conversation is that none of us knows if the Lord led her to do it. If He did, who are we to say it is wrong? We simply don't know, and it would be arrogant for us to judge her with our finite knowledge of the situation. Even if these people have read the Bible, fervently believe their lifestyle is righteous, and are not repentant, why should she not go? Does a sinner have to fit into certain guidelines before we are allowed to witness to them? We don't know if the Lord led her to this, and we need to stop saying she is wrong for it, lest we look like fools.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, God's choice to institute execution among his people was necessary seeing that God's focus was a nation. I'm not saying that the death penalty isn't necessary. I'm saying that we should view it with extreme reserve and always remind ourselves that we aren't ancient Israel and that our system is often flawed. We therefore should advocate that all measures be taken to save the life of the condemned on the grounds that they may indeed be innocent. When DNA evidence or outright confessions are made perhaps it's more justifiable. Again, I'm not against the death penalty. I just have reservations against a wholesale embrace of it. I see it as incongruous to support prison ministry and mercy...and yet support the death penalty wholesale. Typically the death penalty is persued in a spirit of revenge not justice. This is why we've executed some who were innocent. Revenge can bring a mad rush to judgment that clouds justice. So in short I have reservations about the death penalty, I feel we should always advocate on the side of mercy, teach forgiveness no matter how difficult, and even when the condemned are executed...I believe that a Christian shouldn't flip the switch but rather close their eyes and pray that it be fast for the sake of the condemned. Do they deserve it? Absolutely not. My human nature says, "Fry 'em!" But that's my flesh. My spirit sees a soul. It sees the death penalty as a final tragedy in the situation. Two tragedies...the loss of the victime...and the loss of the condemned.

As for Israel's wars. You will remember that in the beginning God himself defended Israel supernaturally. When Israel did march to war they marched under the DIRECT order from God as spoken through the prophets. They weren't sent by a President who counseled with staff. It was ordered by God himself. Also again, God was focused upon a nation. Today he is focused on us as individual people called out from the nations. Therefore these wars don't compare to war today. To continue, after Israel grew in power and demanded a king God slowy began backing away from being the defender of the nation. The prophet Samuel even warned them that a king would use their children to wage wars and serve his interests. From that point forward Israel's protection was increasingly in their own hands until God completely turned them over to their enemies culminating in what happened in the year 70 AD. War is the scourge of humanity.

Also consider how governments have been known to lie to justify war. How does a Christian know when they are truly engaged in a justified military action? When a Christian participates in this world's military they accept being pawns of the government that can be used in an unjustified manner. Even in Hilter's Germany the average German soldier believed the Allies were out to destroy the German Fatherland and their beloved culture and history. Lies abounded in Hitler's propaganda. Often they just wanted to preserve what they felt the Allies would destroy. When Hitler invaded a country he never said, "We'll invade them though they did us no harm." No, Hitler always claimed the nations he invaded served as threats to his Germany and that pre-emptive action was necessary to preserve the German state from enemies who hated her. Can a Christian truly "trust" fallen worldly governments to always act righteously? No. Could you see an American Apostolic serving in the American military meeting a foreign Apostolic serving in his nation's military meeting on the battlefield killing eachother, each believing the other nation is the aggressor? No. Therefore I believe we should refrain from allowing ourselves to be pawns in this world's wars. If any Christian participates in the military surely it would be best to serve in a non-combatant fashion. But still the ethical questions of possibly participating in an unjustified war of national self interest should cause us pause and consideration.

Since God is no longer focused on building a nation but rather a called out people, much of what was done in the OT isn't applicable but rather serves as spiritual types and shadows. Today we do not violently wage war in the flesh...we wage war in the spirit through preaching and teaching God's Word in a lost and fallen world.

We should stand and speak regarding the value of life in every context. Life is either sacred or it isn't.

I'm working a series of 12 hrs shifts thru Sunday so please forgive the brevity and the sporadic nature of my answers.

You said "Since God is no longer focused on building a nation but rather a called out people, much of what was done in the OT isn't applicable but rather serves as spiritual types and shadows. Today we do not violently wage war in the flesh...we wage war in the spirit through preaching and teaching God's Word in a lost and fallen world. "

This is where we have a fundamental difference. You believe that "much" of the OT law serves as a mere example. I believe that the hermanutical principle is that the provisions of the law remain intact unless changed by the Writer of the new covenant. While God may not have a 'earthly' people, per se, He does exercise authority over the nations of the world and installs the rulers as His ministers to carry out justice. This is not an arbitrary justice. Justice, to be just, can not be arbitrary or changing. There must be a law above the local/national civil law. I agree that through history most rulers have not followed that law that that in no way negates it's necessity. They are held responsible for keeping it.

You show examples of justice being perverted and I agree. We must be careful to execute extreme caution be for rendering the death penalty. I have no problem there and we have many tools at our disposal, that the ancients didn't have, that help us determine the facts of the case.

The scripture calls Christ's civil ministers(magistrates) to dispense the 'wrath', 'vengeance', and 'fear' of God against civil disobedience. BTW, this is New
Testament. It is clear that God has ordained both temporal and eternal judgment. Where are the magistrates of the earth to get their guidance for proper punishment that is just, fair, and not arbitrary?

Sorry! Got to run.....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I'm working a series of 12 hrs shifts thru Sunday so please forgive the brevity and the sporadic nature of my answers.

You said "Since God is no longer focused on building a nation but rather a called out people, much of what was done in the OT isn't applicable but rather serves as spiritual types and shadows. Today we do not violently wage war in the flesh...we wage war in the spirit through preaching and teaching God's Word in a lost and fallen world. "

This is where we have a fundamental difference. You believe that "much" of the OT law serves as a mere example. I believe that the hermanutical principle is that the provisions of the law remain intact unless changed by the Writer of the new covenant. While God may not have a 'earthly' people, per se, He does exercise authority over the nations of the world and installs the rulers as His ministers to carry out justice. This is not an arbitrary justice. Justice, to be just, can not be arbitrary or changing. There must be a law above the local/national civil law. I agree that through history most rulers have not followed that law that that in no way negates it's necessity. They are held responsible for keeping it.

Do you believe slavery is an acceptable institution for society? It's legislated in the OT and slaves are admonished to be obedient to their masters in the NT. Paul even told a run away slave to return to his master. The Law as found in the OT must be interpreted within it's covenantal context. It was part of a specific covenant established with a specific people for a specific purpose. We cannot extrapolate Israel's covenant and apply it to the United States. We may be able to draw principles from the Law to guide us in government and justice but the Law itself applies only to Israel.

You show examples of justice being perverted and I agree. We must be careful to execute extreme caution be for rendering the death penalty. I have no problem there and we have many tools at our disposal, that the ancients didn't have, that help us determine the facts of the case.

See, we agree on far more than you may have assumed.

The scripture calls Christ's civil ministers(magistrates) to dispense the 'wrath', 'vengeance', and 'fear' of God against civil disobedience. BTW, this is New
Testament. It is clear that God has ordained both temporal and eternal judgment.

Can you show me one of Christ's "civil ministers or magistrates" in the New Testament? I know Paul refers to the Roman government then standing in Romans 13, the primary point of Paul's statement was obeying authorities and paying taxes.

Where are the magistrates of the earth to get their guidance for proper punishment that is just, fair, and not arbitrary?
Sorry! Got to run.....

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that we should stone people? lol

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you believe slavery is an acceptable institution for society? It's legislated in the OT and slaves are admonished to be obedient to their masters in the NT. Paul even told a run away slave to return to his master. The Law as found in the OT must be interpreted within it's covenantal context. It was part of a specific covenant established with a specific people for a specific purpose. We cannot extrapolate Israel's covenant and apply it to the United States. We may be able to draw principles from the Law to guide us in government and justice but the Law itself applies only to Israel.



See, we agree on far more than you may have assumed.



Can you show me one of Christ's "civil ministers or magistrates" in the New Testament? I know Paul refers to the Roman government then standing in Romans 13, the primary point of Paul's statement was obeying authorities and paying taxes.



I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that we should stone people? lol

maybe he is saying we should stone you, just kidding, lol, dt

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

maybe he is saying we should stone you, just kidding, lol, dt

LOL