Jay Bakker, a big supporter of a pro-gay group, met privately with Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church to talk about faith and sexuality issues and to ultimately gain the support of the megapastor.Son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jay and a group of gays and lesbians attended one of Lakewood Church’s Sunday worship services in an effort to change the influential pastor’s view on gays and lesbians. At the end, Osteen did not affirm homosexuality.
It was the first of six megachurch stops in a pro-gay campaign called The American Family Outing – a collaboration between Soulforce, COLAGE, National Black Justice Coalition, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. Some 30 LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons and supporters took their national campaign to the country’s largest church on Mother’s Day to create dialogue around LGBT issues with members of the megachurch.
“Families come in all forms,” said Kim Beggs, a lesbian mother and also an Osteen fan, according to the Houston Chronicle. “God loves us.”
The group of 30 met with Osteen after service as the megapastor was greeting hundreds of visitors. The Osteens – including the pastor’s mother, Dodie, and wife, Victoria – welcomed Bakker and the guests from Soulforce, according to Lakewood spokesman Donald Iloff, who added that the church does not turn visitors away.
Joel Osteen, his brother, Paul, and Iloff then met privately with Bakker and there they discussed faith, family and LGBT people.
“It was a very cordial, very nice meeting,” Iloff told The Christian Post on Tuesday. “But ultimately through our conversations, we continued to disagree with Soulforce and Jay’s position.”
Iloff says Bakker, whose mother is somewhat of a legend in the LGBT community, and the groups involved in the pro-gay campaign want the megachurches not to see homosexuality as sin.
Osteen, who authored bestselling book Your Best Life Now, had remained largely mum about the issue of homosexuality but indicated in public interviews that he doesn’t agree with it.
“I will say we don’t see homosexuality as the worst sin,” Iloff commented. “Sin is sin.”
Participants of the six-week American Family Outing campaign will continue their efforts with five other megachurches. Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, The Potter’s House in Dallas and Hope Christian Church in Maryland have already agreed to meet with LGBT families, according to Soulforce. The campaign is also targeting Saddleback Community Church in southern California.
Read more here.
[From me]
Joel Osteen gets a lot of grief for being so positive. I was disappointed with his refusal to talk about controversial topics on Larry King Live. However, credit must be given to him sticking to what the Bible says about homosexuality. People’s lives are being changed by God’s power though his teaching.
What has gotten into Jay Bakker? God loves everyone no matter what. But as the Lakewood spokesman stated so well, “sin is sin.” How does Jay reconcile his belief according to what God says? I would love to allow anything goes and tell everyone they are righteous and going to heaven. But that isn’t what God’s Word says.
What do you think?
24 Comments, Comment or Ping
Bernard Shuford
They don’t feel “welcome” unless they are affirmed, we gotta realize. If we don’t affirm them, they’re going to accuse us of hating them. It’s a vicious cycle. In reality, we want them to feel welcome so that we can try to change them. Of course, WE realize that only God can change them, but their perspective is that we are trying to change them.
As the church, we have an incredible battle ahead of us in regard to this. I see the fences being built, and it’s going to be increasingly difficult for a church and pastor to maintain a Biblical stance while saying “we love you and we welcome you to attend.”
It breaks my heart that it’s coming to this.
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
When you say, “God says,” do you mean what is in the Law that God gave to Moses, or do you mean what Paul said? If you mean the Law, then I have to ask about many commandments in the Law that most Christians believe it’s OK to ignore. If you mean what Paul said, then I have to ask if you believe that Paul always speaks for God (or if he doesn’t always, how do you know when he does)? Or maybe you’ll miss my point again and just respond that “homosexuality is bad, m’kay?” (in the voice of Mr. Mackey on South Park)
May 15th, 2008
Bill(cycleguy)
For this once I can affirm Joel Osteen. Personally I think his health/wealth garbage is from the pit of hell and smells like smoke but this one time…congrats on taking a stand. As for Jay…Wow!
I, too, agree that the fences are being drawn. The Bible did say that would happen with the “itching ears” passage. And it will be a struggle to welcome without affirming more and more as time goes on.
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..How Come?
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Bernard,
How about saying that homosexuals are sinners, but so are all of us - any of us is as much of a sinner as a practicing homosexual (speaking here as a Christian). There’s no particular reason to single out homosexuals. How about saying that homosexuality is a sin, but so are many things that I do every day - and my sins are no less grave than homosexuality (speaking again as a Christian). That changes the conversation from “we” and “you” to “us.” And once the conversation changes to “we,” then why focus on any one group of sinners when the focus should be on being closer to God? At that point, the focus would be encouragement. The point would be for each believer helping his brother or sister on his or her “walk,” instead of each pointing to the other’s sin.
On the other hand, if I truly believed that God loves homosexuals and that God hates homosexuality, and that God grants prayers when 2 or more gather and agree, I would believe that all I would have to do is to get the homosexual to join me in asking God to “heal” him and he would no longer be a homosexual.
May 15th, 2008
Neil
Good points, Bernard.
Homosexual behavior is a sin. The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Yes, we commit other sins and are all sinners in need of a Savior, but we don’t have groups protesting the United Methodist General Conference, for example, disrupting the agenda and getting the microphone to advance the cause that adultery, pedophilia, drug abuse, stealing, etc. aren’t sins.
Everybody see the difference? These groups don’t want tolerance, they want affirmation and they want the church to change the Bible. Some Apostates have granted them their wish. Fortunately, the church growth around the world tends to be more orthodox.
Neil’s last blog post..Weekly roundup
May 15th, 2008
Monte
No doubt, Jay is dealing with some heavy, unresolved, unreconciled issues due to the antics of his dad years ago, and the divorce of his parents. Who knows what his home life was like having celebrity parents, and then the disruption of it all when his dad went to prison, and his mother divorced his dad. I’m not defending him, but I’ve known others who have a watered-down faith due to the baggage they carry around from the past. What is it they say? “We spend our adulthood getting over our childhood.” Whereas, that might be the case for everyone, it may likely be the case for someone like Jay. Just like we don’t cave in to our children when we know they are wrong, but love them through it, we must do the same for young, influential men like Jay Bakker.
May 15th, 2008
Quinn Hooks
Great post, Kevin. Osteen got this one right.
Quinn Hooks’s last blog post..Judge rules in CSU case
May 15th, 2008
Phil Hoover
I’m very saddened by all of this. Pastor Osteen was, of course, right. Bakker has some incredibly heavy baggage due to the antics of both parents…and he will carry some of that weight for a long time, unless the Lord brings resolution to it.
SOULFORCE is not interested in anything but being “recognized” and “affirmed.” They tried these very same tactics on Christians Colleges and Universities a couple of years ago….it didn’t work then.
And now they are going after some large churches. It’s nothing but a spectacle meant to fuel and embarrass the Evangelical Community.
We need to be as “wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.”
Phil Hoover’s last blog post..“Hope” Merwin…home with the Lord.
May 15th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
Paul said homosexuality was a sin too. Look at Romans 1.
I agree that all people should be affirmed that they are special to God but we should never condone sin–any sin.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Osteen is right.
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Ha! I knew you would side-step my points!
That’s ok :^}
May 15th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit so yes he was speaking for God.
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
If everything Paul says in the Bible is from God, then when Paul says for example in 1 Cor 11 that women should not pray with their head uncovered or else they should have their hair cut off, was he speaking for God then? And when Paul’s advises to drink wine instead of water in 1 Tim, was he speaking for God then too? I see many drunk, bald-headed women in your future :^)
Also, you never did clarify: when you mentioned what “God says” about homosexuality, did you also mean that homosexuality was prohibited in God’s Law and that we should obey the Law?
May 15th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
Paul was addressing specific problems in the church. Homosexual acts were against the law of God & Paul stated they were still wrong.
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
I guess I’m not following: drinking wine was addressing a specific problem for just that church? And women covering their head was addressing just a specific problem? It would seem to me that covering (for women) or not covering (for men) one’s head in order not to “dishonoring” it would be a general problem. It would also seem like drinking wine would be general advice. How can you tell when Paul’s message is meant for everyone for any time, or when it was meant for a particular church at that particular time?
May 15th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
From my studying the women issue was for these new believers to show respect for their husbands-many who were not believers. The wine had to do with how dangerous the water.was to drink.
May 15th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Could you share some of what you studied? I wasn’t aware that there was any evidence either in the bible or in secular history that shows that water in the particular church that the author of 1 Timothy was writing to was any worse that the water in other churches. I’m anxious to know the support for this theory that you found in your studies! Please share!
Why would those new believers be different from other new believers with regard to head cover? So would Paul’s advice about women shaving their head hold for all new believers, or for all women who have skeptical husbands? Also, why should the men keep their head uncovered when they pray? Again, I’m anxious to know some of the details of your studies - in particular, what lead you to conclude that the reason for Paul’s advice about head coverings applies only to women who have many doubting husbands?
May 16th, 2008
Marty Duren
3A-
While I suspect that you are fully aware of the answers to your questions, this actually goes back to a conversation that you and I had here a few weeks back: contextualization.
Your question about Paul raises the problem of proper interpretation: who was the audience, what was the issue, what was said, what was the era. You take none of these into consideration when you ask your question.
A well known Greek scholar, Spiros Zodhiates, addresses very clearly the issue of head covering. In the pagan temples, where prostitutes were part of the worship experience, it was common for them to shear their heads to being very close cropped or bald. Christian women, on the other hand, tended to grow their hair long. When a temple prostitute came to faith in Christ, she could not grow her hair out overnight, thus, she was required to wear a “head covering” to indicate her submission to God until such time as her hair grew out. The “head covering” was either hair or a “hat.”
You simply cannot attempt to transport that specific example to the 21st century out of context, which is what you did.
About the wine, I disagree with Kevin. While I am an abstainer, the argument from “dirty water” is very weak. In Paul’s instance, he is clear: “for your stomach’s sake.” It was a medicinal use. Jesus drank both wine and water as did virtually everyone in the first century. They had water pots, cisterns, wells, etc. Water was a part of everyday life and was probably cleaner than the streams we have today (unless they were drinking from the watering hole).
Throughout scripture, your characterization not withstanding, it is drunkenness not drinking that is forbidden. Kevin’s conviction is the same as mine: I’m don’t drink. Scripture doesn’t command drinking; as long as it isn’t a stumbling block to another believer it only permits it.
Marty Duren’s last blog post..Post Denominationalism-Economic and Technological Hammers
May 16th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
Marty,
Actually I agree with your take on the wine. I have the same conviction about abstaining but have no scriptural basis that drinking in moderation is a sin. You said it better than me. I do think medicinal is a valid reason. Just like I take Nyquil today!
I wrote this & my later responses from my Treo so I don’t have access to cut & paste
May 16th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Marty,
In fact I do agree with you that Paul often speaks in context of culture of a particular church. And that is precisely what I had hoped my questions would finally bring to light. It seems as likely that Paul’s comments in I Cor 6 and Rom 1 on homosexuality were in the context of the “idolaters” (pagans) of his day, who were accused of all types of inappropriate sex as part of their worship, as it does that Paul’s comments to the Corinthians was in the context of pagan worship practices.
… which finally brings me back to the statement Kevin made which prompted my questions about Paul: “How does Jay reconcile his belief according to what God says?” The answer is that if we take Paul’s comments in their proper context of the church he was speaking to and the particular issue he was addressing, it need not follow that Paul was saying that “Homosexual acts were against the law of God & Paul stated they were still wrong” as Kevin suggested. A better understanding might be that Paul saw certain behaviors (some sexual, some not) as hallmarks of pagan worship, and the did not want Christian churches to associate with pagans or to behave like them.
May 16th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
Jesus said He didn’t come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. No where in the NT does it say homosexual behavior is OK. Neither does it say adultery or fornication is OK so it is not like one is OK and the other is not. Sin is sin.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Hagee’s apocalyptic support of Israel hurting McCain?
May 16th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
What about the context of Paul’s comments? Looks like we’re back to the immortal words of Mr. Mackey from South Park: “homosexuality is bad, m’kay?” :^)
May 16th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Context is important, but the law never changed.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Hagee’s apocalyptic support of Israel hurting McCain?
May 16th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
I’m getting at the 2 points I made earlier, about the question you asked: “How does Jay reconcile his belief according to what God says?” Here are those 2 points again:
If [by “God says”] you mean the Law, then I have to ask about many commandments in the Law that most Christians believe it’s OK to ignore. If [by “God says”] you mean what Paul said, then I have to ask if you believe that Paul always speaks for God (or if he doesn’t always, how do you know when he does)?
If you believe that Paul speaks for God, then I would expect you to agree, as you have, that context is important. Otherwise, you would be shaving women’s heads!
So when we look at Paul’s comments about homosexuality, the context informs us of why Paul might have made those particular statements about the relationship between promiscuity (among other things) and idolatry and why he thought they were apropos to the churches at Corinth and Rome (in the same way that his statements about covered heads seem apropos to the church at Corinth). We know that Rome and Corinth were very large centers for pagan worship, and we can understand why Paul would use whatever rhetoric he could to keep his churches from mingling with the pagans and being influenced by them. The pagans had horrible things to say about Christians as well (like Christians eat their young) - neither side wanted to lose their own following to the other side. In light of the context, Paul’s statements need not (and probably should not) necessarily be understood as applicable to all people of all time.
I’m glad we’re also getting to my other point - about the Law. When you say, “the law never changed,” are you saying that we ought to continue to obey the Law?
May 16th, 2008
Rob Slagle
A3
I believe that what Kevin is referring to is that the bible tells us that we are to live by the Spirit and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as believers.
See Colossians 2:6-23, Colossians 3:1-17. I believe that is at the heart of what Kevin is trying to express, but I don’t speak for him, so am I hitting the nail on the head Kevin?
Rob Slagle’s last blog post..Song I heard today
May 16th, 2008
Reply to “Osteen is right.”