Does Hillsong accept married homosexuals as members?

James White dealt with this on his podcast today

[josh p]

James White dealt with this on his podcast today

Recently, while on vacation, I fellowshipped at a Hillsong congregation in Europe. Its not my cup of tea but but I did talk to several leaders in depth who were sympathetic to my concerns of exactly what Christians were to do in assembling according to the scriptures. I contrast their attitude with many fundamentalist ministries who say they are not pragmatic, but, in fact are at many points.

So, Josh, could you please give the salient points what White identifies. I find Dr. White uneven on the whole while really appreciating certain aspects of his ministry. I never listen to podcasts. If there is listening involved, I choose to listen to the spoken bible, primarily on CDs.

From what I had read on Wayne’s posting, I had thought that the Hillsong ministry took action appropriately when they found out about the issue. I am wrong in this conclusion?

I was listening while at work so I may have missed some but back in October of 2014 White emailed a hill song guy (not the head pastor) and asked if he could explain their position on homosexuality. The man responded by clarifying some things and explained that they believe it is a sin and, while they accept everyone, they do not condone the behavior.

His basic condensation of their position is that a homosexual is welcome to be a member of their church but cannot be in leadership as above.

Interestingly he also began to interact with Kent Brandeburg’s response to his textual position. He did not finish so he is going to continue tomorrow.

I too have certain reservations about White but in general find him to be helpful.

[josh p]

I was listening while at work so I may have missed some but back in October of 2014 White emailed a hill song guy (not the head pastor) and asked if he could explain their position on homosexuality. The man responded by clarifying some things and explained that they believe it is a sin and, while they accept everyone, they do not condone the behavior.

His basic condensation of their position is that a homosexual is welcome to be a member of their church but cannot be in leadership as above.

Interestingly he also began to interact with Kent Brandeburg’s response to his textual position. He did not finish so he is going to continue tomorrow.

I too have certain reservations about White but in general find him to be helpful.

Would it be too ask you to report back tomorrow in this thread on the White/Brandenburg positions?

No I can do that. It may be a problem covering all the arguments so I will try to distill it.

So far, as is usually the case with KJVOnly or preferred, it comes down to one’s understanding of what preserved means and how God did so.

So if you are gay, are you welcome at Hillsong Church? Of course! You are welcome to attend, worship with us, and participate as a congregation member with the assurance that you are personally included and accepted within our community.

Of course it all hinges on what he means by “gay.” Struggling with and battling against same-sex temptations? There’s no indication he limits “gay” to that, but by mentioning this in the context of excluding such people from leadership roles it seems clear that “gay” includes “practicing the gay lifestyle.” In which case I would assume there would need to be a similar approach to other sexual issues, like say…

So if you are [a man having your father’s wife] , are you welcome at Hillsong Church? Of course! You are welcome to attend, worship with us, and participate as a congregation member with the assurance that you are personally included and accepted within our community.

Silly Paul, being so judgmental and legalistic by commanding the Corinthians to kick the man involved in sexual immorality out of their church!

“So if you are (living in open sin) are you welcome at _________ Church? “

“So if you are (living in open sin) can you be a member of ________ Church?”

“So if you were divorced for non-Biblical reasons and remarried, can you join _____ Church?”

[josh p]

No I can do that. It may be a problem covering all the arguments so I will try to distill it.

So far, as is usually the case with KJVOnly or preferred, it comes down to one’s understanding of what preserved means and how God did so.

I didn’t get a chance to listen to it today so I will try tomorrow. For those interested its on Sermon Audio

[josh p]

josh p wrote:

No I can do that. It may be a problem covering all the arguments so I will try to distill it.

So far, as is usually the case with KJVOnly or preferred, it comes down to one’s understanding of what preserved means and how God did so.

I didn’t get a chance to listen to it today so I will try tomorrow. For those interested its on Sermon Audio

A fresh thread is probably called for to examine the arguments of this debate. If you start it based upon the podcast, I will follow it.

I’m not really interested in a separate thread about KJVOnlyism. My mentioning it was more of a passing comment than anything. I just thought it might be interesting to some since Mr. Brandeburg has come up in the past.