Hillsong: We haven't shifted at all.

First Things ^ | 10/20/2014 | Andrew Walker

[Gamecock]

In light of new comments from Hillsong’s head pastor, Brian Houston, I wanted to add some additional thoughts to the critical comments I made on Friday.

On Saturday, the Christian Post reported the following statement from Brian Houston:

I encourage people not to assume a media headline accurately represents what I said at a recent press conference.

Nowhere in my answer did I diminish biblical truth or suggest that I or Hillsong Church supported gay marriage. I challenge people to read what I actually said, rather than what was reported that I said. My personal view on the subject of homosexuality would line up with most traditionally held Christian views. I believe the writings of Paul are clear on this subject.

I was asked a question on how the church can stay relevant in the context of gay marriage being legal in the two states of the USA where we have campuses. My answer was simply an admission of reality—no more and no less. I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ.

I made the point that public statements condemning people will place a barrier between the church and the world (and I note that Jesus came to save and not to condemn), which is why at Hillsong, we don’t want to reduce the real issues in peoples lives to a sound bite.

This & like many other issues, is a conversation the church needs to have and we are all on a journey as we grapple with the question of merging biblical truth with a changing world.

What should we make of these new developments?

First, whenever and wherever a pastor sides with biblical teaching and reaffirms his commitment to Scriptural authority, we should rejoice. Brian Houston has done so in this statement, and for that we should be thankful.

Second, Houston phrased his clarification on the basis that Paul is in fact clear about homosexuality, which is commendable. Unlike some, Houston is clearly not afraid to hold Paul’s teachings on this issue as the inspired revelation of God. He has not attempted to distort Scripture to make it appear affirming of homosexuality as others have (Acts 20:30). I don’t want to be too finicky, but it is important to add that Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality isn’t a unique formulation just to Paul; it’s the narrative—full sweep—from Genesis to Revelation. Marriage, gender, and sexuality aren’t just appendages tacked onto Scripture, but are icons of the Gospel and human flourishing (Matthew: 19:4–6; Ephesians 5:22–33; Hebrews 13:4).

Third, I think this is a teaching moment for Christian leaders. The refusal to speak clearly when asked remains a problem, which is what precipitated this to begin with. Given that this issue may be the hottest cultural topic and given the swiftness with which society and, increasingly, the courts have accepted gay marriage, prominent Christian leaders will no longer be able to sidestep this question. We’ll need to be ready with an answer that reflects both truth and grace (1 Peter 3:15). We can’t get away with a hedging position or a triangulating non-answer. What’s more, given how so many Christians are grappling with this issue, it’s of pastoral importance for leaders to not send an uncertain signal. Having the right position but giving incomplete answers is pastoral malpractice (2 Timothy 4:1–2; Titus 2:15; Acts 20:27).

I also think we have to be careful about making distinctions between personal and public positions. This is a distinction the Bible doesn’t recognize. The full, biblical Gospel (one that speaks both a sentence of death, and a hope of reconciliation) is a public truth (Acts 4:12). We hate our neighbor when we hide truth under a bushel (Matthew 5:15). Speaking in uncertain, reticent tones gives the deadly impression that it is pastoral to not speak with biblical conviction. This is wrong. If preaching “salvation” excludes sexual ethics, John the Baptist’s corpse would have a head attached to it, and 1 Corinthians would probably never have been written.

Fourth, contrition isn’t a substitute for clarity. When asked, Christians offer the truth in gentleness and respect, but without apology on behalf of Jesus (1 Peter 3:14–17). We don’t stammer where the Bible speaks. The matter is even more pressing when we refrain from speaking clearly about an issue where our culture is so grievously deceived, such as homosexuality (Romans 1:18–32).

Fifth, while I agree that every follower of Christ is on a spiritual journey, we should expect those we place in spiritual leadership to be certain about the things about which the Scriptures are certain. Missional sensitivity is appropriate, of course. But is it wrong to expect the pastor of one of the world’s most influential churches to have a sound theology of sexuality and marriage—and to offer it when asked? I don’t think so.

I’m glad to see that perhaps Hillsong isn’t “shifting” as many originally thought. I’m glad Houston clarified his remarks. But that he had to even issue a statement is evidence of the very ambiguity that existed in the first place. The clarification is good news though. Not just for those who hold to a biblical standard for marriage and sexuality, but also for our gay and lesbian neighbors we are called to love.

The lesson for all of us in this is quite simple: When asked about a contentious social issue that’s loaded with potential to anger, divide, and invite persecution, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:37).

[Gamecock]

Followup to the following: Hillsong Church, Relevance & Pariahs...declined to give the church's position on same-sex marriage

___________________________________________________________________________

YBPDLN* Ping List Ping!

The YBPDLN Ping List is generally published infrequently but based on the exploits of the megachurch pastors posts can spike for a season. If you would like on or off of this list please FReepmail me.

Because 18,000 People Can’t Be Wrong!

*YBPDLN=Your Best Purpose Driven Life Now

[all the best]

Thanks. I was very disappointed in Houston and Hillsong. Glad to have this clarification.

[Gamecock]

I was asked a question on how the church can stay relevant in the context of gay marriage being legal in the two states of the USA where we have campuses. My answer was simply an admission of reality—no more and no less. I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ.

Seems to me that question has been asked before and answered for us:

2 Tim 4 1. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

[Alex Murphy]

Nowhere in my answer did I diminish biblical truth or suggest that I or Hillsong Church supported gay marriage....My personal view on the subject of homosexuality would line up with most traditionally held Christian views. I believe the writings of Paul are clear on this subject....I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ.

The "writings of Paul are clear", his personal views line up with "most (but not all) traditionally held Christian views", but does he actually articulate what any of those are? No. Also note that he gives more time to "my personal view" than he does to "my church's view".

Not exactly the "our church doctrine agrees with the Bible, which clearly states that homosexual activities inside or outside gay marriage is a sin" answer that the article spins it to be.

[metmom]

Same here.

[GeronL]

...will place a barrier between the church and the world

Has this person ever read the Bible? Does he remember the parts about how the church and believers will be hated and persecuted for allegiance to God's truth?

Dude, it is either one side or the other.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

But that he had to even issue a statement is evidence of the very ambiguity that existed in the first place.

Or, it is evidence of the pettiness of many christians - the only army in the world that attacks its wounded and proclaims any perceived weakness at the top of its lungs for the enemy to hear...

Can you imagine the nation of Israel trying to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem...instead of working with a sword at the ready, they would shout to the enemy 'hey...my neighbor here hasn't finished his wall...it isn't strong right here...it may look ok, but there is no strength to it'.

Maybe when we see a weakness (or a perceived weakness), we should 'cover' it - not to hide it or pretend it doesn't exist - but to stand in the gap. There is already an 'accuser of the brethren', he doesn't need our help...

[GeronL]

Not only do I find it troubling that he thinks there should be no distance between the world and the church but that he thinks Christians are the ones building the barrier despite the Bible making it very clear that they will hate us and persecute us because we are believers.

Sounds like he thinks it will be our own fault.

[opus86]

This relevance goofiness is making for squishy evangelicals. Truth and eternity are always relevant, to all people at all times.

[circlecity]

"I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ."

This troubles me. If you don't want to be "ostracized by the world" then you really don't want to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus told us the world would reject the Gospel and would hate Christians as it hated him. Paul says the Gospel is "foolishness" to the world and that a person trying to live a righteous life in Jesus Christ would be (not "may be" but "world be") persecuted. Being ostracized and hated by the world is the mark of a solid Christian. If you want to be loved by the world and not ostracized by the world then you have no business being a Christian "pastor".

[El Cid]

The "writings of Paul are clear", his personal views line up with "most (but not all) traditionally held Christian views", but does he actually articulate what any of those are? No

I found that troubling (or telling) also. He had a chance to make some clear statements - which I am sure would have offended some people - but he punted.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

It seems obvious to me that he doesn’t want a lost soul to stay away if they are of good will to try to learn about the saving grace of Jesus Christ, so he is seemingly tip toeing in using gentle words but not in beliefs. You can’t convert a soul unless you bring him into the building, men of good will to listen.

That’s my take from what I read here.

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “Or, it is evidence of the pettiness of many christians - the only army in the world that attacks its wounded and proclaims any perceived weakness at the top of its lungs for the enemy to hear...”

Yes, I have seen and heard what you speak of in your statement, and, I have seen Christian Brothers and Sisters spew venom and hatred toward each other over theological disagreements.

However, while I believe that Christians are to express their disagreements (within the church) with respect and out of a concern for the wayward brother or sister (as the Bible clearly teaches) - does that mean we do not respectfully rebuke a Christian brother when there is a perceived huge, theological error - especially when that brother is a pastor or priest?

The problem with your suggestion of “covering it up” or “standing in the gap” within the church body rather than in full view of the public is that Pastor Hillsong made his statement in the public arena - for all to hear.

That’s why he appropriately made his clarification in public as well.

Again, I agree that our rebukes should not be spoken with anger and demeaning, hateful language - but the rebuke, the correction MUST be given or we demonstrate that we really don’t care about the person in error, or worse, the error itself.

[Alex Murphy]

You can’t convert a soul unless you bring him into the building

What part of "Go into all of the world" requires the disciple to bring converts into a building?

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “You can’t convert a soul unless you bring him into the building, men of good will to listen.”

I agree that we do as Peter counseled in 1 Peter 3:15 to “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

Yet, we must also remember that even Jesus’ name is an offense to some. Speaking the truth, even in a loving way, is going to offend people. The truth that all of us are sinners and under God’s condemnation is not a pleasant truth, yet it must be said or we fail the call of the Gospel.

Yes, it is not to be spoken in self-righteousness or in anger or hatred, yet the very facts of the Gospel are going to be offensive to some and will become angry that we believe.

A lot of people get very upset when we communicate that only through Jesus alone is there salvation. That’s pretty exclusive, but that’s the truth. The time is coming when I believe we are going to face very real physical persecution in this country. I hate thinking about that, I hate that it will happen here, but I believe it is at the door. Unless God gives a gracious revival in our nation, I don’t see things getting more cordial for the Gospel - only more open hatred of it and anyone who believes it.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I agree that his clarification should have been in public. But any ‘rebuke’ should have been done in private, by a couple people. Go to him and say ‘ya know, this didn’t sound good. sounds like...’. Then he comes out publicly and clarifies it. Not a big deal.

We are too quick and to public to ‘accuse our brethren’. Jesus was quick to call out hypocrites, and we often justify ourselves when doing the ‘same thing’. Gotta remember, Jesus died for those sins. I think we identify these mega-church guys as the enemy, and instead of being ‘numbered with them’ in their ‘transgressions’, we like to separate ourselves from them - more as the hypocrites would do than the one who laid his life down...

[avenir]

Paul’s letters to Timothy—“...my true child in the faith”—are simply brilliant.

[CynicalBear]

>>I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ.<<

The need to be loved by the world is strong with some.

[60Gunner]

"I explained that this struggle for relevance was vexing as we did not want to become ostracized by a world that needs Christ."

Mr. Houston, I beg to differ. The only entity to whom the church must be relevant is the kingdom of Almighty God, established in Heaven and earth by the Lord Jesus Christ, and administered through His Holy Spirit through the Community of he saints.

2 Corinthians 15-17 makes it very clear: "15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Can't say it any plainer than that, Mr. Houston.