A Christian Singer Didn’t Express Hard-line Anti-Gay Theology and You’ll Never Guess What Happened Next…Okay, Maybe You Will

Perhaps you’ve heard about it by now. On a radio interview, the host asked Christian singer Lauren Daigle about her opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality since she had recently performed on The Ellen Show. Lauren’s response?

I can’t honestly answer on that. In a sense, I have too many people that I love that they are homosexual. I don’t know. I actually had a conversation with someone last night about it. I can’t say one way or the other. I’m not God. So when people ask questions like that…that’s what my go to is. I just say read the Bible and find out for yourself. And when you find out let me know, because I’m learning too.

Sure, it was a wishy-washy non-answer. But now the Evangelical community is up in arms because this Christian pop singer didn’t confront their #1 go-to sin (well, maybe tied with abortion) head on.

You see, that’s what the Evangelical community (my community, folks – I’m not an outsider) has become. We look at specific sin-indicators – SINDICATORS, if you will, as single-issue make-or-break support-or-shun dilemmas. I’ve seen people online rail against Ms. Daigle. I’m sure some are calling for a boycott.

unicorn shun

But I’ve got a couple problems with this. First, Ms. Daigle is a pop singer. She’s not an evangelist. She’s not a preacher. She’s not a theologian. She’s a pop singer. Is it her place to take a nuanced public theological position about every issue we believe?

No.

Second, our SINDICATORS are not good data points for gauging salvation. The Bible says that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the prerequisite for salvation. After that, God’s working on all of us in our spiritual journeys.

Or do we not REALLY believe in grace?

‘Cause if we DO, that means heaven will be filled with saved people who are drunkards, adulterers, slanderers, and those who have same-sex attraction. Yes, I know the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Many Christians use this passage to beat up on sinners who fall into these categories. But Paul doesn’t give a black and white cut-off. In fact, he clearly indicates that coming to Jesus results in a transformation away from sinful behavior. But he doesn’t give a timeline of how fast the transformation takes.

It’s easier to live in a black and white world where we condemn everyone who isn’t like us and we shun all artists who disagree with our theology. But there are far too many stones being thrown – not just at the sinners, but at Christians like Lauren Daigle – and I know that you stone-throwers are not without sin.

When World Vision Shrivels Up and Dies

world-vision

Man! What a topsy-turvy week this has been for Evangelical Christianity. First World Vision, a ministry organization dedicated to helping underprivileged kids and families around the world, announced that it would change its employee conduct policy and allow homosexual individuals in committed and legal marriages to work for the ministry.

Then, two days later (and after MUCH backlash from the Christian community), they reversed their decision affirming that they would NOT allow homosexuals in legal marriages to be part of the ministry.

It doesn’t take much intuition to see that the reversal was a direct response to the Christian outcry and pull of support. George O. Wood, the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, even called on members of the AG to withdraw support from World Vision and shift support to organizations that support a biblical view of sexual morality. In the span of a couple days, World Vision lost thousands of supporters and financial backers. Then came the letter recanting.

But all is not well in American Christianity.

There were some who applauded World Vision’s original shift allowing married homosexuals to participate in the ministry. They see the reversal as a slap in the face to the LGBT community and are outraged that World Vision has “caved” to conservative Christians. Zack Hunter calls it “biblical blackmail.”

When World Vision made their shift, Rachel Held Evans crusaded to get them new supporters. When World Vision recanted she publicly apologized (how many “so, so, sorry’s” can you have in an apology?) to everyone who supported the ministry because of her.

At the end of her apology she included a message from a man who told her he supported World Vision only after they made their first change to accept married homosexuals.

This simply boggles my mind.

People who sponsored a child BECAUSE of World Vision’s decision to hire married homosexuals are no better than Xians who decided to withdraw support because of the decision. It is using the almighty dollar to designate approval of an organization/ministry.

While liberal Christians are crying foul, reminding conservatives that children’s lives will be affected, those liberals weren’t saying anything to their liberal followers about the children before. Don’t let people fool you – it’s political. For liberals as well as conservatives, the children run the risk of taking a backseat to theological politics.

Meanwhile, thinkers like Zack Hunter create a false dilemma. The argument goes something like this: “How can you conservatives pull your support of World Vision? Think of the children!” The dilemma created is that, if we don’t support World Vision then there will be no one to take care of impoverished kids and families around the world.

This is a false dilemma because there are many organizations dedicated to bringing aid and relief to people around the world. If you look at the statement from George Wood, he did not simply ask Pentecostals to withdraw support from World Vision. He asked people to shift support to other organizations DOING THE SAME THING that still supported a Pentecostal understanding of biblical morality.

If we believe that an organization is falling away from biblical morality there is no obligation to support that ministry. If we TRULY believe the ministry to be going in the wrong direction we have an obligation to step up and tell them so. That’s what happened with World Vision. And they changed their position back to align with biblical morality.

If liberal Christianity wants to back aid/relief organizations that support their understanding of biblical morality they are more than welcome to do so. We should all support taking care of those less fortunate than ourselves!

But don’t get mad when a ministry doesn’t support your pet theological position. If it’s that big a deal, go find someone doing the same type of work who does support your position.

In the end, even though we disagree on the theology and biblical morality issue, the work of the kingdom is still done.