Janet Mefferd Dismantles Alan Chambers on Homosexuality

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.

via Christian Radio Host's Interview With Alan Chambers on Homosexuality Gets Heated.

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.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • This is sad. He really sounds like he's dug in his heels on it though.

      My thinking on it is that he's shown enough intelligence that he really doesn't have the excuse of not being a "theologian." Nothing Robert A. J. Gagnon wrote, for instance, about Alan's position is inaccessible to even those of quite average intelligence.

      Alan has two main choices in my view. He can either run Exodus into the ground (his current course), or he can start studying and stop making excuses. He can come to the correct conclusion that his leading friend at the Gay Christian Network needs to stop falsely claiming that unrepentant homosexuals will be with Jesus.

      They are all in denial, and all of this has a very direct impact upon NARTH and SB 1172 and the like.

      Alan's comments concerning Reparative Therapy are directly connected to Alan's very poor theology. He's leading many people astray with him on many fronts.

    • I just finished listening to Robert A. J. Gagnon being interviewed by Janet Mefferd on the "Janet Mefferd Show." To any of you who have not yet listened, I recommend you do. It will be worth the time spent. http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2012/09/06/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20120906-hr-2/

      I believe we are at a pivotal moment. The illogic of pro-homosexuality Christianity is really being exposed. It can't help but happen as we argue for the Gospel against those who seek its elimination by what they would term evolving it to suit "modern" times, the current culture.

      Alan Chambers has been roundly supported and held up as a shining, guiding light by the mainstream media, the same media that has given more over to the pro-SB 1172 forces than to our side. What is clear to me though is that they are losing the debate about homosexuality and the Bible and the New Testament. I see that as why Alan Chambers became upset by Janet's open, honest, direct, clear questions.

      If, or more so when, we win, they will be set back also concerning their attack on NARTH. They will be set back in general. The importance of that cannot be overstated.

    • Well, here's a fascinating discussion, and I'll point to three comments in particular; but the whole thread is worth reading:

      A Facebook post by The Janet Mefferd Show: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=193824480750675&id=267352301224

      Alan Manning Chambers (still confused and confusing others): https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=193824480750675&id=267352301224&comment_id=617441&offset=0&total_comments=77

      Robert A. J. Gagnon continuing to nail much of the topic: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=193824480750675&id=267352301224&comment_id=615645&offset=0&total_comments=77

      Robert A. J. Gagnon tying the issue to many other very important issues, not the least of which is whether SOCE will remain legal, as they need to: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=193824480750675&id=267352301224&comment_id=623210&offset=0&total_comments=77

    • Update: "Exodus Board Member Resigns; Cites Concerns Over Chambers' Comments" http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-board-member-resigns-cites-concerns-over-chambers-comments-81305/

    • Does anyone suspect that Alan Chambers may not have read the whole Bible -- any version/canon? He sounds like people I know who have not read it but nevertheless argue for certain self-styled Christian positions that run diametrically opposed to the words and deeds of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.

      I think that with a few more gaffes and/or with his earlier ones still hanging out there not retracted but the people being reminded of them, Alan will have to leave as Exodus' leader. That will be very good for NARTH because it will send a strong signal that people have been wrong and not detailed enough, concerned enough, but rather duped at best by anti-NARTH forces.

    • mic_chr

      Why do you keep posting comments in your own article?

      • Why do I keep posting comments on my own article?

        Obviously, for one, it adds information. It's also more convenient than updating the article text. The comments get 
        automatically
        cross-posted elsewhere. People who look at my Disqus activity see the comments, which further disseminates the information.

        Those are just a few of the reasons.

        Does all of that meet with your approval, or should I, in your view,  not use the comment section as I have? If I shouldn't, explain.

    • mic_chr

      "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."

      Jesus won't "heal" people with cancer, AIDS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, autism, Down syndrome, schizophrenia, or even amputees; but somehow he will make someone attracted to his/her own sex become 100% heterosexual (even though there's no evidence that has ever happened). What's the logic behind that? Oh that's right, evangelical christians and logic don't mix.

      • How do you know Jesus won't heal such people? Have you asked him and he's told you he won't?

        What's the point in putting heal in quotation marks?

        Where did you get the idea that no one has been healed of same-sex attraction by his or her faith? You say there is no evidence. Where's the evidence that anyone ever went from heterosexual to homosexual? Are you saying it's never happened? People who were sexually attracted to the same sex and stopped being so and have said so are just as credible as anyone who has said that he or she was once exclusively sexually interested in the opposite sex but developed a sexual interest in the same sex.

        There a thousands of people who have experienced huge diminishment in same-sex sexual interest or desire, etc. Here's why: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/09/02/neuroplasticity-homosexuality-and-all-other-behaviors-and-manifestations.html

        "evangelical christians and logic don't mix." It is pretty obvious which one of us is the more logical, and it's not you. By the way, since you're ignorant about it, all Christians are evangelical by definition.

        Are you defending Alan Chambers? He claims to be evangelical.

        So, are you a homosexual? Do you perform sodomy on any males? Do you allow yourself to be sodomized? Were you born wanting a penis up your rectum or to put yours up someone else's? Was that your genetic destiny? Where's the proof of that concerning anyone? That is the general so-called position of homosexuals. Those are fair and pertinent questions.

        Is it your plan to continue commenting here until you are thoroughly embarrassed? Are you capable of feeling embarrassment?

        Also, if you don't answer my questions, your comments won't be approved. This is not a forum for duckers and dodgers and topic-changing artists (if that fits your Internet pattern).

        • mic_chr

          I respond to all your questions and you still won't publish my reply. Very Christian of you.

    • mic_chr

      "How do you know Jesus won't heal such people? Have you asked him and he's told you he won't?
      What's the point in putting heal in quotation marks?"

      Tell me when was the last time an amputee got his limb back by praying to Jesus, or whether faith-healers actually cured someone and were not con-artists.

      "Where did you get the idea that no one has been healed of same-sex attraction by his or her faith?"

      From pretty much every unbiased scientific organization that studies sexuality.

      "You say there is no evidence. Where's the evidence that anyone ever went from heterosexual to homosexual? Are you saying it's never happened? People who were sexually attracted to the same sex and stopped being so and have said so are just as credible as anyone who has said that he or she was once exclusively sexually interested in the opposite sex but developed a sexual interest in the same sex."

      It's called bisexuality. Simple as that.

      "There are thousands of people who have experienced huge diminishment in same-sex sexual interest or desire, etc. Here's why: https://www.realliberalchristi..."

      Ironically, Exodus International used to claim the exact same thing.

      "By the way, since you're ignorant about it, all Christians are evangelical by definition."

      Evangelicalism is a relatively new Christian movement born out of the Protestant Reformation. None of the older churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Assyrian, etc.) claim to be "evangelical".

      "Are you defending Alan Chambers? He claims to be evangelical."

      I think it's hypocritical that Chambers used to be a "real Christian" when he  demonized homosexuals and made false claims about Exodus' success rate. Now that he turned a new leaf and began to say the truth, he's an "apostate" and a "false Christian" who should be tarred and feathered. Apparently it's OK to ignore the Ninth Commandment when it comes to Jesus.

      "So, are you a homosexual? Do you perform sodomy on any males? Do you allow yourself to be sodomized? Were you born wanting a penis up your rectum or to put yours up someone else's? Was that your genetic destiny? Where's the proof of that concerning anyone? That is the general so-called position of homosexuals. Those are fair and pertinent questions."

      I'm not homosexual. I don't care about what they do in bed, but apparently you DO care. Hmm...

      "Is it your plan to continue commenting here until you are thoroughly embarrassed? Are you capable of feeling embarrassment?"

      I am already embarrassed from all the crap you just wrote.

      • You answered a question with a question after I answered you directly and not with questions. I asked you the following: "How do you know Jesus won't heal such people? Have you asked him and he's told you he won't?" Answer my questions, or don't comment here again. Do you understand? This is not your house.

        Healing is a matter of faith, individually but also collectively. People such as you, whose spirit is dead, retard the collective. Apparently you have either not read the Gospels or have obviously disbelieved them if you have. I should think you have not read them. Have you read them?

        "And he said unto them, 'Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.'" What does that mean? Explain it.

        Could Jesus heal an amputee? You said he won't. You also listed a number of diseases concerning the healing of which some medical doctors have been unable to explain their complete disappearance in the highly devout, believing. Were you ignorant of the existence of such cases? If so, you don't have a very curious mind. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

        In answer to my question, "Where did you get the idea that no one has been healed of same-sex attraction by his or her faith?", you answered: "From pretty much every unbiased scientific organization that studies sexuality." You are showing ignorance. There is no so-called scientific organization on the face of the Earth that has answered that question. There have only been unsupported opinions rendered. There is no test devisable that could even answer that question. Who are you, a member of the Star Chamber? (Let's perform some trial-by-fire on you to force God to show God's power according to our will.) You know nothing. You have offered nothing of value here. You're blind.

        "It's called bisexuality. Simple as that." Going from hetero to homo is change. Going from hetero to bi is change. The point of the question, because you completely missed it but were revealed via your reply, is that change is possible and does and has happened. Now, is change a one way street? It is not. You're dreaming, duped, a minion of the homosexual activists at the very least. Likely more.

        "Ironically, Exodus International used to claim the exact same thing." Where have you heard Alan Chambers even lately state that there is not diminishment? You haven't. He's been talking lately exclusively about 100% change but still admits to knowing people directly who claim 100%, people he has not said are mistaken. Ask him how many have changed, as in also diminishment.

        "Evangelicalism is a relatively new Christian movement...." Such ignorance is astounding. Christianity that is not evangelical doesn't exist and never has. Not that it would alter the truth of my statement, ask any major denomination for an official statement concerning that, and you will be extremely hard pressed to find any (I doubt you would) that would be so ignorant as to say officially that the statement is untrue. Evangelicalism is inherent in Christianity and always has been. Which denomination will deny that Jesus evangelized and that he taught his followers to do likewise and that all who truly follow him and who are therefore Christians do it, evangelize? Those who do not evangelize when they are able are not being Christians. Real Christians don't hide it under a bushel. Learn and change. You need it, desperately.

        You did not answer the question about Chambers. Also, homosexuality is demonic. What false claims about Exodus' success rate did he make? You claim that he's begun to tell the truth. He has not. He has simply muddied the waters; and when he has been directly challenged, he has whined that he is not a Biblical scholar. There is no hypocrisy in saying that! You don't know the meaning and proper usage of the term. It is completely consistent.

        The "Ninth Commandment" according to whom? You probably don't know what the question means, though you presume here to instruct me on Christianity and whether or not homosex is wrong and any of my business, etc.

        "I'm not homosexual. I don't care about what they do in bed, but apparently you DO care. Hmm..."

        You don't care what they do in bed because you lack the understanding of the ramifications of their actions. You think their behavior is insulated by bed covers or the walls of their rooms. You're stupid. Their behavior comes out from their hardened hearts. They are broken and spread brokenness, which negatively impacts across-the-board. That's why we have the slippery slope showing more and more requests to license greater and greater sexual depravity; but you don't care what they do in bed.

        What they do won't be insulated and have no effect until the Great Separation, and I don't want to be with them after that. You are devoid of understanding as to how their behavior disturbs good order in the whole world. You are a fractured soul in need of healing. You should turn to Christ and repent of your wickedness and experience healing that will become greater and greater as more people join you in also overcoming.

        "I am already embarrassed from all the crap you just wrote." My words are not the dung that is toxic here and unfit for anything. You are the one who is spewing ignorance and stupidity. You have no shame concerning your evil ways.

        Who are you? Identify yourself. Come out of the dark. Stop fearing the light.

        Also, your quip about my not approving your comment is further exposing you for your ignorance and impatience. I don't sit around doing nothing but being accessible for comment moderation. I work. Do you?