Posted on 12/22/2009 7:48:52 AM PST by markomalley
Theological disagreements over homosexuality are causing a divide within a downtown ministry that serves the poor, homeless and lonely.
Martha’s Table, through which eight churches have provided Sunday afternoon worship and meals for the needy at First Congregational Church, is losing three of the churches because of the issue of homosexuality, even though the ecumenical ministry takes no position on it, said the Rev. Matt Laney, pastor of First Congregational.
Agape Christian Church and Word for Life Church of God plan to withdraw from Martha’s Table at the end of the year, and Centerpoint Church (formerly Third Reformed Church) has already done so, Laney said.
“The founding principle of Martha’s Table was that churches would come together and put aside their differences in light of what unites us, which is our common commitment to serve Christ and others,” Laney said. “But now this difference has risen above our common commitment to serving Christ.”
Laney said representatives of all three churches have been “very clear” that they don’t want to be “guilty by association” with First Congregational and its inclusiveness of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, said Laney, who publicly supported an ordinance passed by Kalamazoo voters in November that protects GLBT people from discrimination in housing, jobs and accommodations.
“To me, it’s incredibly disappointing,” Laney said. “That’s the best word I can give it. It’s also mystifying. I was very shocked and surprised when they pulled out.”
The man who came up with the vision for Martha’s Table — Jeff McNally, pastor of Word for Life and owner of McNally’s Kitchen, which provided most of the meals — declined to comment on the reasons for his withdrawal from the ministry that began in 2007.
“I would just as soon let it go,” he said. “We are just pulling out. That’s all. ... We would just as soon take a position of silence.”
But Ron Vestrand, senior pastor of Agape Christian Church, said it was conversations with McNally that led to his church withdrawing from Martha’s Table.
“As time went on, Pastor McNally was becoming concerned with Pastor Matt Laney’s stand on homosexuality. I believe it was causing some disunity. ... I think the primary issue was that we felt that Matt’s stance on homosexuality as a valid Christian lifestyle violated our biblical worldview.”
Vestrand added that “ecumenical ministries are a great challenge because sometimes there can be issues that can rise up. We probably were a bit remiss in not talking more extensively about some of the possibilities.”
Kim Sandelin, a lay pastor from Agape, said churches can tolerate some theological disagreements and work together, but “an immoral lifestyle has eternal ramifications in Scripture.”
Yet, he said he wanted to emphasize that “none of the pastors in this ministry have any ill will or bad feelings toward one another.”
He said he talked to Laney about his church’s decision. “When Matt and I were done, we shook hands and considered one another brothers in ministry,” he said.
The Kalamazoo Gazette was unable to reach a representative of Centerpoint for comment. A pastor from another church in the Reformed, or Calvinist, tradition, the Rev. Ken Baker of Third Christian Reformed, said his church will continue its commitment to Martha’s Table.
“I feel very sad about the decision of three partner churches to pull out,” Baker said. “Everything about the ministry of Martha’s Table reflects the heart of Jesus, who came to preach good news to the poor. Surely, all our churches would agree that mercy and compassion were at the heart of the ministry of Jesus.”
He noted that his denomination takes a “theologically conservative” position on homosexuality, interpreting the Bible to say the practice is wrong but that it is not a sin to have a homosexual disposition. “But I fail to see how our integrity is violated by participating in Martha’s Table,” he said.
Laney said his church and the other remaining churches — St. Luke’s Episcopal, First Presbyterian and First Methodist — are also committed to continuing the ministry, and he is trying to recruit other churches.
The church that leads the Martha’s Table worship service on a given week will now bring the meals, Laney said. Attendance can vary widely, from about 50 to 120, although Martha’s Table usually draws 80 to 90 people, he said. About 20 to 30 of the attendees are volunteers.
McNally and Vestrand also say they remain committed to serving the poor and homeless. “Our heart toward the homeless has not deviated at all,” Vestrand said.
Baker said he intends to write a letter to the three churches leaving Martha’s Table.
“My hope and prayer is that these other churches will reconsider and change their minds,” he said. “What better time of year to do that than this season of the year when Christ followers ponder the mystery of God coming in the flesh to ‘lift up the humble and fill the hungry with good things’?”
(Having said that, as a matter of full disclosure, it should be pointed out that my church participates in a shelter ministry with a bunch of other churches of all sorts of different beliefs. Just because we participate with them doesn't mean that we affirm any of their beliefs -- other than the belief that we don't want to find a bunch of homeless frozen under the bridge where they normally stay)
Your thoughts?
The "Law of Unintended Consequences" raises its' ugly head again.
Unrepentant homosexuals mock God. They deserve help whenever they repent, but until that time, they can go to the devil.
The appropriate thing for the churches which pulled out is to just open up another “soup kitchen” in the downtown area. That way they are doing the same work which they were originally called to do.
I really don’t see a problem.
In our town, the churches are falling all over each other trying to provide soup-kitchens; there are more volunteers than there are homeless.
I would feed and clothe an unrepentant homosexual. I wouldn’t hire him to work in a church office, or force a landlord to rent to him.
I wonder if the Congregational pastor has begun emphasizing the positive view of homosexual conduct in the context of the homeless ministry. It’s just a thought ... since homosexual advocates often seem unable to engage in any activity without making it about homosexuality in some way.
I will bet anyone that the churches that have withdrawn will join McNally and continue the program. I also will bet that the PC churches will run into problems and ask for govt funding to continue their PC approach.
“Your thoughts?”
I guess it depends on the circumstances.
Our parish is starting this year with the “Warm Nights” progrms, where our parish will shelter homeless persons for a week, taking turns with various ecclesial groups in the area.
But our interaction with the other groups is strictly logistical.
I wouldn't want to work side-by-side with folks from ecclesial communities who were militant liberals and/or homosexuals. First, I don't want folks to think that I consider their views legitimate. Second, it's just an unpleasant experience.
sitetest
I am not remotely a supporter of the homosexual agenda. That said, I think it's becoming pretty clear that Satan is using the issue of homosexuality to drive "theologically correct" churches away from proper Christian behavior.
The behavior described in this article is absolutely sick, and it's unfortunately all too common. There is little room for Christian love in a church that would turn its back on the poor and needy because of the faults -- however real and serious -- of a partner congregation.
The real hell of it is, once a congregation starts to react to the homosexual agenda, it often seems to narrow its focus to that and that alone.
If the price of being "right" on homosexuality is a denial of Christian duty and Christian love, then I would rather be wrong on that, and right on the important stuff.
Well, it's all very well and good to take care of the poor, but remember:
"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." (Mark 4:17)
These people may want to consider that before they are so quick to push aside the very Jesus they claim to follow.
This situation does have a lot of matters falling on both sides of the issue. One poster noted that it seems that the gay community cannot just let such things be and will eventually begin to force the agenda even more. While the article doesn't specific mention it, I suspect that the rumblings of this next homosexual agenda push were formulating. If gays could obtain a degree of 'legitimacy' by the silence of the churches involved, it would provide greater leverage for them. The churchs pulling out found themselves unequally yoked with a liberal theology condoning the gay lifestyle. So the balance for me is to agree with the churches that left.
That said, those churches, if committed to helping the homeless could begin a joint ministry of their own.
Withdrawing from the joint mission is the Christian thing to do. Scripture is clear on homosexual behavior. The other two churches can and probably will continue to minister to the poor. Cooperating with ‘doctrinally diverse’ organizations can become a stumbling block to those who have no faith or a weak faith because the net result is that the clearness of Scripture is denied. All religions are not the same, all paths don’t lead to heaven.
Perhaps. From what I've seen of these things, though... they probably won't.
Cooperating with ‘doctrinally diverse’ organizations can become a stumbling block to those who have no faith or a weak faith because the net result is that the clearness of Scripture is denied. All religions are not the same, all paths don’t lead to heaven.
All very theologically neat and tidy ... and also rather beside the point. Whose faith is really being tested here? I seriously doubt it's the faith of those who are in need. To a hungry person, or one who hasn't got a proper coat, the position of a particular pastor on the issue of homosexuality is likely not among his greatest concerns, or even his smaller ones.
The test of faith is in what we do, not what we say. These churches have already shown that they value their theology more than they value their actual, hands-on Christian duty.
A church cannot partner with churches that go against God’s Word....it is one thing to feed homeless it is another to not recognize that homosexuality is a sin.
Works don’t justify.
If it was a secular organization that churches happened to participate in, that’s one thing. But when you present yourselves as emissaries of Christ yet you deliberately do not live up to the Biblical standard, indeed even pick and choose which parts of God’s Word you will abide by, then you are lying and making a liar out of God. I would not want to be involved.
Which makes their separation in this case a beautiful work of faith.
To a hungry person, or one who hasn't got a proper coat, the position of a particular pastor on the issue of homosexuality is likely not among his greatest concerns, or even his smaller ones.
I they are meeting just the physical needs of the poor, I might agree with you. With no Christian witness this would be a poor use of resources. Perhaps the clarity of the witness is the whole point of the separation.
Perhaps. From what I've seen of these things, though... they probably won't.
From the strong stand they have taken now against the whims of the world, I rather think they will. It is clear that they take their faith seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised if the two find a way to continue their mission. I will be surprised if that fact is ever reported.
Not quite accurate.
As the saying goes, "clothes don't make the man, but they do proclaim him." In a like manner, what you do proclaims what you are.
Jesus Himself lays it all out for you, here. Ignore Him as you will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.