Recent anti-gay comments by two Baptist pastors “show a complete lack of understanding of how to minister to those struggling with this particular temptation.”

Just yesterday one of the young men (16) that works for me, with whom I have had a familiar relationship (and his family) for many years, ran past me, taking a shortcut through a freshly planted landscape bed to get to a specific place first. Translate, he was being a relatively normal, 16 year old selfish twerp at the time. Coincidentally, a couple of “neighbors” from down the road who I did not know were walking their dog past at the same time.

As he ran past, I casually mentioned, rather loudly, that if he did that again I would “tear off your leg and beat you with the bloody end of it.”

Now, while that was definitely not the best way of communicating, because of our relationship there was nothing more communicated to that young man than “don’t do that again or there will be consequences.”

However, the neighbors were probably aghast, and I might should be half-expecting a knock on the door from the authorities concerned about me communicating threats of extreme abuse to a minor.

I would like to think I will not be so reckless in communicating at another time, but there is an applicable lesson here.

Pastoring is relational and passionate. Snippets of video sermons without the context of relationship, even if the entire context of the sermon is presented (which few are), rarely give the full grasp of what is being communicated and the purpose of that communication. More so when the snippet or sermon is jaded by the commentary of those who hate truth and love abomination. When the (possibly) neutral others, who equally have no relationship to the pastor, receive that communique’ their perception of what is being communicated by the pastor to his flock is likely grossly skewed simply because there is no benefit of pastor/flock relationship.

While there is always room for greater care in communicating, especially in this age of broadcast technology, I think we err in jumping on the judgment bandwagon so readily even when the broadcast communication is easily perceived as being “over the top” by almost anyone’s standards.

Maybe it should also be a reminder to us that Scripture makes it quite clear that the pastoral authority is in a relationship with a local assembly. I think that in our cultural enamorization with communication technology we tend to lose the Scriptural picture of a qualified elder being satisfied with pastoring only his local assembly.

Lee: Your point is well-taken generally, and we should all try to keep it in mind when isolated quotes get publicized. But it doesn’t seem to be applicable here, where (so far as I am aware) neither Pastor Worley nor anyone else has attempted to defend his comments as having been hyperbolic or taken out of context, and in fact he and his congregation seem to be proud of the attention his remarks have garnered. Bad enough that Worley has this attitude; worse that he was reckless enough to verbalize his attitude from the pulpit; worse still that his congregation applauds him for it.

This Pastor Worley character has approximately the same grasp of grace and the gospel as he does the English language. What a ridiculous embarrassment he has brought upon the faith. He should in no way be defended but severely castigated and rebuked.

[dmicah] This Pastor Worley character has approximately the same grasp of grace and the gospel as he does the English language. What a ridiculous embarrassment he has brought upon the faith. He should in no way be defended but severely castigated and rebuked.

So you know all about Pastor Worley’s grasp of the gospel? Specifically where has he demonstrated he does not have an appropriate grasp of the gospel? Generalizations feel good but they point to nothing in particular.

[dmyers] Lee: Your point is well-taken generally, and we should all try to keep it in mind when isolated quotes get publicized. But it doesn’t seem to be applicable here, where (so far as I am aware) neither Pastor Worley nor anyone else has attempted to defend his comments as having been hyperbolic or taken out of context, and in fact he and his congregation seem to be proud of the attention his remarks have garnered. Bad enough that Worley has this attitude; worse that he was reckless enough to verbalize his attitude from the pulpit; worse still that his congregation applauds him for it.

And the reason I have posted on this thread and not the other, more specific one, is to address the concept, not the individuals involved. Here we have an SBC official, who likely does not know or has ever met either of these pastors in person, who has effectively tossed them and their ministries of many years under the bus on nothing more than a perception jaded by commentary without relationship.

I’m not defending Worley’s statements. But I don’t know his congregation either. If his congregation needed to grasp the full effect that the LGBT agenda brings to a culture, then he clearly communicated in a very understandable manner the loathsomeness of this abomination, its detrimental influence on all phases of society/culture, and the effects it will eventually bring about if left unchecked (a culture/society dying out).

Perception is reality for sure. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that perception is the truth.

I don’t know Pst. Worley from Adam’s house cat. How arrogant would it be for me to judge his 53 years of ministry from 250 miles away based on a single communique’ and the commentary of someone who likely doesn’t know him any better than I do?

Lee, the line you are taking doesn’t make sense. Maintaining that the statement bears some validity because it might be pertinent to his congregation? This is merely euphemistic way to say it’s ok to say whatever you want from a pulpit without scrutiny. He did not clearly communicate the nature of homosexuality. He trivialized the issue with a silly illustration. His many years of ministry are beside the point. You are correct that we can’t know his full track record. But this statement can be judged, assessed and rebuked. It is not arrogant. It is called discernment.

Alex, his grasp of grace is obviously deficient. To repeatedly call people “queers” from the pulpit demonstrates a lack of grace and understanding of the culture and the nature of sin. The words he spoke are illogical, irrational, unbiblical, inflammatory and in general ad hominem. None of his comments were pastoral, reconciliatory, or loving. Neither were his statements prophetic warnings of God’s judgment upon sin and his zealous desire for righteousness, without which leads God to pour out wrath against the wicked.

His comments were self-centered, egocentric, “preaching to the choir” drivel designed to whip his crowd into mindless agreement. You’ll note he does not once mention reaching them with the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Instead he devises an ill-conceived hypothetical solution for “getting rid of lesbians and queers.”

You may call that a generalization, but between what he did say, and what he didn’t say, he revealed his lack of understanding of the deep grace God has given.

[dmicah] Alex, his grasp of grace is obviously deficient. To repeatedly call people “queers” from the pulpit demonstrates a lack of grace and understanding of the culture and the nature of sin. The words he spoke are illogical, irrational, unbiblical, inflammatory and in general ad hominem. None of his comments were pastoral, reconciliatory, or loving. Neither were his statements prophetic warnings of God’s judgment upon sin and his zealous desire for righteousness, without which leads God to pour out wrath against the wicked.

His comments were self-centered, egocentric, “preaching to the choir” drivel designed to whip his crowd into mindless agreement. You’ll note he does not once mention reaching them with the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Instead he devises an ill-conceived hypothetical solution for “getting rid of lesbians and queers.”

You may call that a generalization, but between what he did say, and what he didn’t say, he revealed his lack of understanding of the deep grace God has given.

I only called your earlier comments a generalization. I have yet to comment on this current one. But allow me to now. Queers may be inflammatory but reprobates or depraved (ἀδόκιμον) is treated as just as inflammatory but is a biblical term about which The Reprobate Minds Society rejects and complains when spoken from the pulpit as such. So the dear Pastor said something inflammatory. Mind if we peruse your favorite teachers to see if they are guilty of such and whether your response was in kind. I thought so.

In fact, in a devious attempt to legitimize queerness which is an apt term (unnatural affections) homosexuals and their sympathizers have adopted the word as if to soften its valid stigma.

Speaking against homosexuality and those who form groups of intentional affirmation and advancement of reprobation against society as ad hominem is to allow one’s self to be absent of the clear delineation and declaration of the Scriptures. The person of positive homosexuality (ad hominem) is specifically identified with the perversion itself. Their person and their perversion is one in the same because this is the basis of their identification as a person. You fail to understand this and are fooled by such disclaimers by these groups with their hands held up innocently as if to say, “What…what?”

“Deep grace”, mind telling me what that is suppose to be? All grace from God is deep, as deep it gets every time. There is not kind of deep, shallow or deep grace of God, it is all divine with no measure.

Mindless agreement? You seem to know a great deal about a congregation you have never met. I believe most people would refer to that as the epitome of arrogance. Maybe you disagree but assuming to know what you cannot is something you are not permitted from Scripture.

I am not necessarily a defender of Pastor Worley but I am a defender of reason and biblical approaches and right now all I see from you is a great deal of good drama minus any real arguments.

But let me address a final point where you state that the Pastor, “demonstrates a lack of grace and understanding of the culture and the nature of sin”. I really do not know what that means in and of itself. You have used an expression with the assumption it has some kind of popular understanding and frame of reference. When the Bible speaks of sin it speaks of no “culture of sin” rather of disobedience and rebellion to God. Is this what you have in mind, if not explain.

But may it be John the Baptist has finally repented of his inflammatory words and lack of understanding of the “culture of sin” in confronting Herod:

Matthew 14:1-8

1 At that time Herod, the ruler of Galilee and Perea, heard reports about Jesus. 2 He said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist. He has risen from the dead! That is why he has the power to do miracles.”

3 Herod had arrested John. He had tied him up and put him in prison because of Herodias. She was the wife of Herod’s brother Philip. 4 John had been saying to Herod, “It is against the Law for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John. But he was afraid of the people, because they thought John was a prophet.

6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for Herod and his guests. She pleased Herod very much. 7 So he promised with an oath to give her anything she asked for. 8 Her mother told her what to say. So the girl said to Herod, “Give me the head of John the Baptist on a big plate.”

You have stretched to catch the ball thrown to you but your foot is about 3 miles off base.

Great post, dmicah. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Alex, I’m curious as to what you think of the Westboro Baptist Church group? How is their approach similar or dissimilar to this pastor’s approach on this issue?

[Greg Long] Great post, dmicah. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Alex, I’m curious as to what you think of the Westboro Baptist Church group? How is their approach similar or dissimilar to this pastor’s approach on this issue?

I do not see the two directly related, only anecdotally. If you wish to propose specifically how Pastor Worley and WBC are similar then I will be happy to respond.

[dmicah] Lee, the line you are taking doesn’t make sense. Maintaining that the statement bears some validity because it might be pertinent to his congregation? This is merely euphemistic way to say it’s ok to say whatever you want from a pulpit without scrutiny. He did not clearly communicate the nature of homosexuality. He trivialized the issue with a silly illustration. His many years of ministry are beside the point. You are correct that we can’t know his full track record. But this statement can be judged, assessed and rebuked. It is not arrogant. It is called discernment.

Okay Micah, try to focus. You’re insisting on personalizing something that I think I made pretty clear I have no intention of personalizing.

[Lee] And the reason I have posted on this thread and not the other, more specific one, is to address the concept, not the individuals involved.

The article was about an SBC official who dissed as irrelevant to any Gospel ministry not one, but two Baptist preachers here in NC based on sermon snippets and commentary with apparently zero relationship with either. Pull up any number of disenchanted fundamentalists websites and you will find this to be a common practice. We’re supposed to be a more erudite bunch here on SI, yet it seems we’re overly eager to take the same simplistic approach—find a snippet of some sermon we have issue with and a commentary from someone whose toga is in a knot about that sermon, its subject matter, or its presentation and heap our self-righteous judgment on it with them.

Frankly, if I do happen to live 250 miles away from any given pastor (which I do from Pst. Worley’s ministry), do not know him, and recognize that he has been in the Gospel ministry for as long as I have been alive then I do think that I would be arrogant to cavalierly toss him under the bus over one very ill-advised rant that has at its core a correct premise (in this case, that God abhors sodomy).

In this day of instant sound byte info when our collective attention spans are about as long as a gnat’s hiccup I find it beyond curious how those in the community of the church are willing to sound off with such definitive judgment about individuals and ministries based primarily on the these sound bytes and the blog posts of people they really don’t even know, completely disregarding any sense of ministry legacy or relationship. I expect such reactions from those that walk in darkness. I would like to think that spiritually minded individuals are above that.

[Alex Guggenheim]

…I am a defender of reason and biblical approaches and right now all I see from you is a great deal of good drama minus any real arguments.

So Worley can show no sense of good reason, a twisted “biblical approach” to this topic, shows “a great deal of good drama minus any real arguments” yet you chastise others while giving Worley a pass? I’m confused.

Lee, I have asserted that I can make a judgment call about a snippet from a sermon. It’s perfectly acceptable, biblical and not arrogant. I specifically said that I didn’t call into question his years of ministry. The statements can be called into question, I don’t care how much experience you have. If he committed adultery, would you weigh his many years of ministry against the one affair, or would condemn the deed? Would it be wrong to even draw a conclusion?

So, slowly read that and let what I am saying sink in. His statements can be assessed, even in isolation from ministry. If you think that is arrogant, that’s your opinion, but you can’t judge me by what you would or wouldn’t do.

You fail to understand this and are fooled by such disclaimers by these groups with their hands held up innocently as if to say, “What…what?”

No, I get that, but it doesn’t legitimize the tone. You know full well the connotation and demeaning nature in which he was using the term “queer.”. You’re arguing the nuances of language in a vacuum. You’re fighting an uphill battle. Your argument is akin to saying that since some African-Americans repeatedly use the “N” word in common dialogue, music and culture, that a white person will give no offense if they utter it. But there’s a significant difference in context and use.

Also, you didn’t address my comments regarding the loveless, irrational, unbiblical nature of the comments of “getting rid” of the lesbians and homosexuals. Biblical or not?

“Deep grace”, mind telling me what that is suppose to be? All grace from God is deep, as deep it gets every time. There is not kind of deep, shallow or deep grace of God, it is all divine with no measure.

Glad you recognize the depth of God’s grace. That’s how i described it. Worley is missing its depths. He doesn’t understand its ability to overcome his own unrighteousness. Thus his condemning nature of someone he considers a worse sinner spews out in derogatory speech. His statements imply that his grasp of grace is limited to the mirror image of his own self-righteousness, not the depth of costly unearned favor.

Mindless agreement? You seem to know a great deal about a congregation you have never met. I believe most people would refer to that as the epitome of arrogance. Maybe you disagree but assuming to know what you cannot is something you are not permitted from Scripture.

maybe you didn’t hear the congregation responding to Worley. I don’t need to know the congregation to make an observation anymore than I need to get drunk to recognize when someone is drunk.

But let me address a final point where you state that the Pastor, “demonstrates a lack of grace and understanding of the culture and the nature of sin”. I really do not know what that means in and of itself. You have used an expression with the assumption it has some kind of popular understanding and frame of reference. When the Bible speaks of sin it speaks of no “culture of sin” rather of disobedience and rebellion to God. Is this what you have in mind, if not explain.

But may it be John the Baptist has finally repented of his inflammatory words and lack of understanding of the “culture of sin” in confronting Herod:

You misquoted me. I never used the term “culture of sin”. I separated culture and the nature of sin. I think most people have a reference point for culture and for the nature of sin. I used these terms specifically in the context of his ad hominem. My point in using this statement is that Worley is making the classic mistake of interacting from a bully pulpit with people that agree with him. He is not considering the general culture and homosexual culture and how they view the church and Christian faith. He is not putting out a well thought expression of love, mercy, justice and forgiveness. He is speaking self-righteously and rudely. It does nothing to address the sinners. It can only alienate them while whipping the crowd into a frenzy.
Further, we humans who name the name of Jesus, tend to think God was fortunate to draft us onto his team. It’s the rationalizing nature of our human condition. By slamming homosexuals, what Worley is ultimately saying is how good he is, how is opinion is on par with God and the Bible, and if anyone has sense they’ll agree with him. This is misunderstanding the nature of sin, the depths of his own sin, and the depths of grace that covers his sins. So you really missed the essence of my point.
That notwithstanding, you misapplied John’s rant against Herod because John preached against him and to him. He didn’t run back to his disciples and whoop them into a cheering session, and come up with ways to get rid of Herod. It’s not a successful analogy. As a self-described defender of reason and biblical approaches, I thought you would want to correct yourself.

Frankly Alex, and I’m probably going to get rapped by a moderator for saying this, but your caustic hubris is so bothersome that I really only respond to you to highlight the ignorance that belies your apparent solid grasp of the English language. You write very well, but you’re intolerable. I love a good debate, but the way you treat people on these forums is unbecoming of a Christian. i doubt you would make a comment like the following to me in person

Mind if we peruse your favorite teachers to see if they are guilty of such and whether your response was in kind. I thought so.

. If you want to engage my points accurately and logically, then please do so. But if you’re going to lace your language with sarcastic barbs, then I’ve got no time for you. You wouldn’t speak this way in person, so don’t do it on the internet.

[dmicah]
Also, you didn’t address my comments regarding the loveless, irrational, unbiblical nature of the comments of “getting rid” of the lesbians and homosexuals. Biblical or not?

Leviticus 18:22 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Sounds biblical to me.

[dmicah] I don’t need to know the congregation to make an observation anymore than I need to get drunk to recognize when someone is drunk.

Well it appears your are a devotee to shortsightedness and do not feel the need to investigate beyond the immediate. This does explain a great deal. A Law Enforcement Officer will tell you that not every time you suspect some is drunk, that they are drunk, such assumptions are not safe but must be verified.

[dmicah] You misquoted me. I never used the term “culture of sin”.

My apologies you are correct, I intended on posting “culture…of sin”.

[dmicah] I separated culture and the nature of sin. I think most people have a reference point for culture and for the nature of sin. I used these terms specifically in the context of his ad hominem. My point in using this statement is that Worley is making the classic mistake of interacting from a bully pulpit with people that agree with him. He is not considering the general culture and homosexual culture and how they view the church and Christian faith. He is not putting out a well thought expression of love, mercy, justice and forgiveness. He is speaking self-righteously and rudely. It does nothing to address the sinners. It can only alienate them while whipping the crowd into a frenzy.

Obviously this is your opinion but be careful you do not prize it to the point of being intolerant of other possibilities. But he need not consider how reprobates view the church and the Christian faith, he need worry about how he accounts to his Master in heaven. He may be wrong but you are just as wrong suggesting he must consider how the mind reprobate views the church and the Christian faith as determining convictions and utterances of such.

[dmicah] Further, we humans who name the name of Jesus, tend to think God was fortunate to draft us onto his team. It’s the rationalizing nature of our human condition. By slamming homosexuals, what Worley is ultimately saying is how good he is, how is opinion is on par with God and the Bible, and if anyone has sense they’ll agree with him. This is misunderstanding the nature of sin, the depths of his own sin, and the depths of grace that covers his sins. So you really missed the essence of my point.
That notwithstanding, you misapplied John’s rant against Herod because John preached against him and to him. He didn’t run back to his disciples and whoop them into a cheering session, and come up with ways to get rid of Herod. It’s not a successful analogy. As a self-described defender of reason and biblical approaches, I thought you would want to correct yourself.

No, John got his head cut off and it appears some Christians would consider this action against Pastor Worley as well.

[dmicah] Frankly Alex, and I’m probably going to get rapped by a moderator for saying this, but your caustic hubris is so bothersome that I really only respond to you to highlight the ignorance that belies your apparent solid grasp of the English language. You write very well, but you’re intolerable. I love a good debate, but the way you treat people on these forums is unbecoming of a Christian. i doubt you would make a comment like the following to me in person

Mind if we peruse your favorite teachers to see if they are guilty of such and whether your response was in kind. I thought so.

. If you want to engage my points accurately and logically, then please do so. But if you’re going to lace your language with sarcastic barbs, then I’ve got no time for you. You wouldn’t speak this way in person, so don’t do it on the internet.

Hubris? Yes I see the hubris alright, lol. Deep grace? Hmmm…looking…looking…still looking for it somewhere.

It is important we maintain self-control and personal dignity in these discussions and avoid making the issue personal. You have handed this distinct advantage to me in this last paragraph but I will not use it to my advantage. I am as passionate as you about my views and will respond as robustly as I know I may just as you will. But if this is the course of the exchange you wish to take then we will have to end the exchange until you can recover from this direction. Thanks, however, for the exchange up to this point. And don’t worry, no one is going to rap you, trust me. :)