If they thought that was testy, I don't think they would have wanted to hang around Jesus. Janet Mefferd is what people call nice. Jesus called them vipers. John the Baptist shouted, "Repent, repent!"
A conservative Christian radio host didn't hold back her criticism when interviewing Exodus International President Alan Chambers on Wednesday over his views on homosexuality, repentance and salvation.
Throughout the half-hour broadcast on "The Janet Mefferd Show," host Mefferd and Chambers engaged in a debate that at times got testy.
Here's the link to the radio-show segment: http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2012/09/05/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20120905-hr-2/
In response to the "Gay Christian Network," Janet said, "We don't have a Greedy Christian Network, do we?" Right on!
Alan though says we are hypocritical that we don't, as Christians, go after the greedy. Listen Alan, search this website for how many times I've said, "greed, violence, and sexual depravity," just like that. You should find the real Church, Alan. The ones that don't see greed as the worse thing aren't teaching correctly. They don't know Jesus.
Alan, an unrepentant homosexual is not, I repeat, is not going to get into the Kingdom of God.
Jesus does say that he will heal you, Alan. Saying otherwise is plainly wrong. Saying that the Bible doesn't say that God will change your orientation is not true if you believe Jesus when he said all things are possible with God.
Why hasn't your orientation changed? Study what Jesus had to say about faith, and you'll have the answer. It's right there if you will knock, seek, and ask, as you mentioned in the interview. If you can't find it, contact me. I'll explain it to you, Alan.
Janet Mefferd didn't understand Alan explaining that the clip from the video took his 99.9% out of context. That one point by Alan though is not operative. Also, in her defense, Alan was/is extremely vague and mushy, which I believe is a tactic.
I don't think she pinned him down enough on his antinomianism. I remember writing elsewhere that he has that streak in him. I'm glad to hear so many others have taken it up. He sounds like he only has one foot into it now, but that's one foot too many.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)