Saturday, December 27, 2008

A dangerous brand of fake Christianity - Candace Chellew

Pastor DL Foster exposes the false teachings (gay christian venom) of self proclaimed ...
recovering Southern Baptist and founder/editor of Whosoever: An Online Magazine for GLBT Christians. I am an ordained minister and a graduate of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.

DL Foster writes - Why would any Christian use nasty profanity to express themselves? Perhaps when sexual immorality is no big deal, then neither is having clean conversation. If Candace Chellew, the so-called minister and Christian editor of the so-called gay christian website Whosoever cusses like this on her blog, it makes one wonder what else is acceptable in her so-called Christian life. Chellew is a lesbian cleric with the United Church of Christ.

On a blog ironically called “the christian agnostic”, Chellew foments against the Vatican because it took offense at John Lennon’s remark that the “Beatles were bigger than Jesus”. Lennon made the deadly remark in 1966. Four years later, The Beatles dissolved and Lennon was tragically gunned down on a New York street fourteen years later.

Maybe Chellew is not aware that the Vatican can’t forgive blasphemy.

The post was blatantly hypocritical. While Chellew lambastes the Vatican for not forgiving Lennon she holds Bob Jones University in unforgiveness for not subscribing to her brand of fake –and dangerous– Christianity.

But then again, when you see nothing wrong as a Christian with an abominable sexual practice, then using filthy words, unforgiveness, hypocrisy and lying are of no particular significance either.

More on Candace Chellew and her false whosoever doctrines.

8 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Notice how homosexuals ALWAYS place their sexual proclivity title BEFORE their "faith" or "faith title."

Gay Christian

Lesbian Cleric

Says a lot...doesn't it?

The Merry Widow said...

Says exactly where they are centered, and it ISN'T on Christ!
And chellew forgot the OTHER part of the "whosoever", and that is "will"...we are choice-makers by design, so we have to "will" to follow Christ...and if you put ANY of the traditions of men above the Woprd of G*D, you have rendered it ineffectual...no saving grace.
Sad, and Eternally deadly!

tmw

prodigal said...

Is anyone honestly trying to bridge the gap between these two camps?

I am an evangelical Christian with a gay sibling. I love my gay sibling, for one, he has more charisma than I do.

I understand that the Bible has some negative things to say about his sexual orientation, but he's my brother. I can see that all of society can't be gay or we would perish. Is it possible that the Bible is actually addressing this as an issue?

I don't have a problem with anyone describing themselves by leading with their sexual orientation (e.g. gay Christian), it is the more distinct qualifier.

If you share the gospel with an unbeliever and they reject it, don't you conclude that the time is not right and then look for signs that God is preparing them?

If we stipulate that homosexuality is wrong just for the sake of this discussion, don't gay persons deserve the same?

Mark said...

Hi prodigal,
The "camps" you speak of are also spoken of in the Bible; goats and sheep - wheat and tares. What do you think is the difference, being an "evangelical"?

No, I do not think God has established sexual boundaries so that the human race would simply continue to multiply. God's concern is our relationship to Him.

I don't have a problem with anyone describing themselves by leading with their sexual orientation (e.g. gay Christian), it is the more distinct qualifier.

I don't either really, it takes the guess work out over whether they are proud in their sin and need prayer. Just curious, do you often describe yourself as a heterosexual christian?

If you share the gospel with an unbeliever and they reject it, don't you conclude that the time is not right and then look for signs that God is preparing them?

Not necessarily, why do you ask?

If we stipulate that homosexuality is wrong just for the sake of this discussion, don't gay persons deserve the same?

Who is "we"? and what do you mean by "deserve" the same; same what?

Prodigal said...

Sorry, Mark, I was not as clear as I'd hoped.

If we stipulate that homosexuality is wrong just for the sake of this discussion, don't gay persons deserve the same?

Is it possible that they are not yet open to giving up homosexuality but they are open to the Gospel? Does the fight have to begin and end on sexuality? In the same way, you don't give up on someone who is rejecting the Gospel now because you might be gaining a foothold at least.

If you are reaching out to a promiscuous heterosexual, don't you want to approach their world view or view of Jesus before addressing promiscuity or any other specific issue. Are you straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel?

On the two camps, wheat and tares: Don't we want to reach the tares? Don't we need a bridge to communicate? If blogging separates the camps for finger pointing, what is the "point"?

As far as leading with orientation, in the past I might have led with sexually deviant heterosexual if the discussion was about sexuality, because it's the most descriptive and most direct way to communicate.

Mark said...

Hi Prodigal,

Is it possible that they are not yet open to giving up homosexuality but they are open to the Gospel?

No. The Lordship of Christ means something; Jesus never said there is an "in-between" status. In Fact He said you are either with me or against me. Your comparsion could also be used with the Pharisees, Judas, and all who have heard (seen first hand) and walked away. Why? Because following Christ ment dieing to themselves, and that was just too much to ask.

Does the fight have to begin and end on sexuality?

Certainly not, but it is sexuality that so called gay christians cling to, an outward rebellion and utter coruption of God's word and will as being created in His image. It is nothing less than telling God "I am King and Lord of my life, not you God!" In essence, God's grace becomes simply not suffient.

If you are reaching out to a promiscuous heterosexual, don't you want to approach their world view or view of Jesus before addressing promiscuity or any other specific issue. Are you straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel?

Not necessarily. I know of no example in scripture that leads one to repent that does not first start with the Law and then God's grace. Folks who need no physician need no healing; Jesus did not come to save the Righteous (the Pharisees for example) He came to save the lost. It should be obvious at this point - this includes the world and the condition of one's heart; proud or meek.

Don't we need a bridge to communicate?

Yes we do, and that "bridge" is the Gospel of Christ alone! Anything else is a false wishful thinking death trap - Ms. Chellew's false "gospel" for instance.

Lastly - back to the post - Candace Chellew claims to be a Christian, she is not, and her writings and ideas are not of our Father in heaven, but of the Father of Lies - Satan. It is wise to expose such, lest others be lead astray into that which not only destroys the spirit but body as well.

As far as leading with sexually deviant heterosexual...sure that may work for you, but I would prefer a follower of Christ - Christian or simply my name.

Prodigal said...

As I said, I might have led with that tag in the past but I would not have been boasting. I would have been "cutting to the chase."

Is there any grounds for approaching others "where they are" as Jesus did with Thomas.

I know Jesus was direct with the falsely religious but was he direct with the prostitutes and tax collectors?

Is there room for compassion?

Mark said...

Prodigal,
I will take at your own words you have been Seminary trained and would conclude your example of Thomas is fairly weak - if relating to one's repentance. Thomas, like many of us, need "proof". Surely God's word would be suffcient, no? Thomas asked and he received. The unrepentant are not asking nor are they seeking "proof" - they are seeking affirmation of their own "God-likeness."

If by "approaching others where they are" you mean showing compassion for the lost, yes. How could we not? If however you mean encouraging others in a false hope, no.

Jesus' directness was such that it hit at the very depths of our souls. Tax collectors and harlots alike, knew their sin, as do you and I. "Come.. follow me" can't be any more direct. Some did, some did not. "Count the cost" He commands, because we will not decieve anyone but perhaps other men and ourselves.

I am begining to get the feeling it is not so much the message of this post that bothers you, as much as it is how it was done, no? If so, when would you ever offend someone and why?