Church's AIDS comments stir controversy in Seattle
SEATTLE -- Mars Hill church is trying to reach out to new communities, but those attempts recently hit a road block on Capitol Hill.
Controversial comments made in a church news release are marring a brand new church location rising from the ashes of an old property at 5th Avenue and Marion Street in Seattle.
Mars Hill left its Belltown location late last year to make way for the new downtown location. But in a press release about the location, the church said:
"Also, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected with AIDS on the hill."
Mars Hill has an openly strong stance against allowing gay members in the church. The release set off a firestorm online and in the alternative press, including The Stranger.
Sarah Toce with Social Outreach Seattle says she appreciates the church trying to reach out to her community, but she doesn't like what the press release implied and she doesn't like the church's opinion on gay rights.
"How do you help someone, how do you claim to help someone when you're basically slapping them down and saying, you're less than, you're unequal?" she asked.
The church only provided the original release when asked for clarification. No other questions were answered. The church had a successful opening weekend with more than 1,500 people attending Sunday service. The church hopes to partner with AIDS-related groups in Seattle.
Controversial comments made in a church news release are marring a brand new church location rising from the ashes of an old property at 5th Avenue and Marion Street in Seattle.
Mars Hill left its Belltown location late last year to make way for the new downtown location. But in a press release about the location, the church said:
"Also, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected with AIDS on the hill."
Mars Hill has an openly strong stance against allowing gay members in the church. The release set off a firestorm online and in the alternative press, including The Stranger.
Sarah Toce with Social Outreach Seattle says she appreciates the church trying to reach out to her community, but she doesn't like what the press release implied and she doesn't like the church's opinion on gay rights.
"How do you help someone, how do you claim to help someone when you're basically slapping them down and saying, you're less than, you're unequal?" she asked.
The church only provided the original release when asked for clarification. No other questions were answered. The church had a successful opening weekend with more than 1,500 people attending Sunday service. The church hopes to partner with AIDS-related groups in Seattle.
Really people....the bible (which was not even written by His own hand or words, but by Disciples own hands and words) is book that is over 3000 years old. We as citizens of "God Bless these United States" can not even agree on interpreting our own constitution which is only little less than 300 years young. The one thing we all as Citizens should remember that United States was not built by religion. The United States is as strong as it because of the lack of presence of a Church Doctrine within our Hallow Halls. Thank you Founding Fathers for seeing the corruption which is organized religion. Two things people; Freedom, you have the Freedom in United States to not let a Human Being into your Church because of choice of sexual orientation, God did not allow you that right, it was United States Government which allows you to practice your bigotry towards one of God's creation. Secondly, it seems to an outsider that Mars Hill Church like many blinded organized religions. Religion has over looked the section on tolerance. Who do you think was there with Jesus while on Gaia. There were homosexuals, whores, drug dealers, murders basically the under belly of that time. Jesus with tolerance was able to see the person, the human being inside of them and welcome the fringe with open arms and mind. How can people feel that they are walking with the Lord with Mars Hill Church when the Church goes against the Lord's very simple principles of loving all of God's creatures.Â
Â
@RASTA PASTAÂ Flamer..
"nuff Said.http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/church-or-cult/Content?oid=12172001
 @Raven A. Reeves If this story is true (and I have no real way to verify that right now) then it would appear that Mars Hill has followed a doctrine called "Shepherding" - which fell into disrepute in most Christian circles about 35 years ago. I do not like shepherding one bit, and most churches - even most of those which once embraced it - now repudiate the practice utterly and on the basis of clear scripture.
(BTW, shepherding as a religious community practice goes back at least the the Essenes in the time of Jesus: the Essenes were very much into this sort of thing - and also were equivalent in certain ways to the Strict Calvinism reportedly taught at Mars Hill. I believe that Jesus' parable of the talents was an explicit rebuke of what we now call Strict Calvinism and the doctrine of Election/Predestination.)
If the reports regarding public and defamatory statements made against a former member are true, that may augur for serious legal problems for the church, and the former member should perhaps pursue all legal remedies thereto.
However, the fact remains that NOBODY is forcing you to join this church. You may not like the rules of church membership, but those are not your rules to argue with. I do not much like the membership rules of the Elks Club, the Moose Club, Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church or its priesthood, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Rosicrucians, probably most Synagogues, ANY swingers' club, or the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang! But then I do not aspire to membership in any of these organizations either, so I don't get too fumed about it.
So why are you so fumed about it? Was it your lifelong dream to be a member of Mars Hill Church or something?
Or are you simply fumed that anyone would DARE suggest - even if not directly to you - that your personal chosen lifestyle (whatever it may be) is not acceptable to God?
Great post, JLS1950. Thanks for that. I agree with you on all points. Well done.
It is a Church, people. Churches have STANDARDS which are called "doctrines". BTW - so do most religions, (...possibly excepting the Universal Life Church.) Would you argue that Hindus are not welcome in your community because they do not accept as "members" those who eat Big Macs? Would you reject Jews and Muslims because they will not accept your proffered ham sandwich?
Christian churches welcome anyone who cares to visit or attend, provided that they are not willfully disruptive. But in order to be a "member" of a Christian church, the first requirement is that you be a CHRISTIAN!
Christianity has certain standards regarding sexual conduct - based on scripture - which Christians (not mere visitors) are expected to adhere to, Christians eschew premarital sex, adultery, male-male and female-female sexual activity, group sex, public sex and a number of other sex-related behaviors. So also do orthodox Jews and virtually all Muslims, insofar as I know. That is their right. Christians also enjoy the right of free association - the right to associate with people with whom they share these beliefs and standards - as in churches.
What we are really seeing in this protest is a person (or persons) from OUTSIDE the Christian community attempting to reset or tear down the standards of Christianity from outside the Church - or perhaps trying to worm themselves into the Church so that they may tear down the standards from the inside. Their purpose is to change Christianity itself, so that their chosen, favored or merely defended sexual lifestyle will be "accepted". They do this in major part because they want to be able to self-identify as "Christians" and to feel "spiritual" even while they remain in open rebellion against the tenets of that faith and the recorded standards of the God revered in that faith.
In this sense they are a bit like another 'Lance Armstrong' if he tried to argue that the rules of international bicycle competition should be changed to accommodate HIS chosen drug-based "training regimen" - or as if he tried to start a new organization with different standards, and call it "The TRUE U.S. Anti-Doping Agency". Alternately, it is like someone calling himself an "attorney", having never attended law school of sat for the bar exam.
In like manner, ANYONE can "call" themselves "christian" but that does not in any way make it so - any more than calling a dingy yellow-gray shirt "white" will make that so.Â
The standards of Christianity were established essentially 2,000 years ago, and in some ways at least 4,000 years ago. They are established and codified, and they are not subject to amendment even to fit the will of the majority. Change the standards of Christianity, and it no longer even IS Christianity. Christians are not responsible for the scriptural rules of Christianity: they are only responsible - personally - to respect them. And those people who willfully refuse to respect these rules are simply ...NOT CHRISTIANS.
 @JLS1950 Would you argue that Hindus are not welcome in your community because they do not accept as "members" those who eat Big Macs? Would you reject Jews and Muslims because they will not accept your proffered ham sandwich?
Â
People are not "Bic Macs" or "Ham sandwiches". Â Your argument is preposterous.
@Learning64Â @JLS1950 Are you suggesting that the Big Macs and the ham sandwiches eat the people??? I was by no means talking of the acts of sandwiches - but of the acts or refusals of people.Â
If you cannot understand the analogy, you are deliberately blinding yourself.Â
 @JLS1950 First of all, churches' so called standards are based on their INTERPRETATION of Christianity. If the Bible was 100% clear, there wouldn't be any Catholics, Protestants or Ortodox; just Christians. In case you haven't heard, there are even churches, however few, that support LGBTQ rights and will officiate gay marriages. Of course all religious zealots everywhere swear their own interpretation is the correct one and anyone not agreeing with them is a sinner.
Â
Secondly, just as Christians have the right to practice their Christianity, LGBTQ people have the right to criticize and protest anyone and any institution that discriminate against and exclude them. Christians have no qualms about waving their pro-life signs in front of abortion clinics, so do unto others is what I say.
Â
I have been following this story and I've heard of no mention of gay folk trying to infiltrate the Mars Hill.Â
Â
I guess you personally asked God what a Christian is and he described it to you in great detail, including why many Christians were wrong interpreting the Bible the way they do. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking with such authority.Â
 @Sechille Well, first of all, argumentum ad hominem (regardless of form) and the use of pejoratives does not an argument win. You can call people "zealots" all day long, and argue that this or that church that calls itself Christian believes or acts differently - all forms of argumentum ad hominem - and all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no strong rational argument for your own points, so instead you are attacking the opposition for perceived but wholly circumstantial "inconsistencies" and calling them names.
Yes, "LGBTQ people" have a right to criticize, protest and express their views. What is unfortunate - and clearly demonstrated in stories such as this and in some of the comments posted right here - is that SOME lgbtq people do not grant or recognize those same rights as applying to those who disagree with THEM. That seems to be the initial controversy here: that the "LGBTQ" community on Capitol Hill is OFFENDED that Mars Hill Church would even establish a "presence" for itself in "their" Capitol Hill Neighborhood and propose to offer services to certain groups of people including HIV/AIDS sufferers. Mars Hill has a much right to be on Capitol Hill as it does to be in Ballard or in my former workplace in Belltown.
Most of the criticism of Mars Hill Church by the "LGBTQ" community appears to fall into these categories:
(1) That Mars Hill Church does not accept practicing "LGBTQ people" into membership.
(2) That Mars Hill Church does not provide church sanction by performing same-sex marriages.
(3) That Mars Hill Church continues to offer its opinion - long and very widely held in the Christian community at large - that sexual relations between people of the same gender are in some way offensive to God (or at least the God of our Lord Jesus Christ) that such practices will ultimately lead to eternal and perhaps also temporal consequences, and that Jesus Christ provides a means to resolve the issue and to avoid these consequences.
(4) That Mars Hill Church does not alter its doctrine in a manner so as not to seem "offensive" to the "LGBTQ" minority community.
I have seen no suggestion whatsoever that Mars Hill Church is advocating or fomenting violence against or otherwise violating the civil rights of "LGBTQ people".
The ENTIRE argument against Mars Hill Church has been centered around matters of expressed OPINIONS and expressed BELIEFS and practices of free association based on shared beliefs. And the gist of these arguments ultimately devolves to an expression that Mars Hill Church has no "right" to a presence in the "LGBTQ" community geographic unless it alters its beliefs to accommodate and affirm the sensitivities and preferred practices of the that minority community - e.g. "affirm us or you are not welcome here".
As for "interpretation", all law is also based on interpretation of statute, of common law and of Constitution. Science is based on interpretation of observations and results. Virtually everything humans do is based on some form of interpretation - whether of words or of experimental results or of the political wind or of nonverbal queues. Christianity is based on interpretation of the 66 books of the Christian bible cannon (plus a few more called the Apocrypha among some denominations.) The practice of bible interpretation is called exegesis, and there is fairly widespread agreement as to the nature and rules of the practice - but with some relatively narrow variance as to the resultant interpretation.
Where churches or denominations widely disagree with one another, there is usually some decision to grant greater authority to some extra-scriptural source (e.g. tradition, other writings, cultural norms, authority of some mortal person, dissonant prophecies etc.) For example, some churches and denominations simply decide that certain elements of scripture are "not for today" or are no longer of importance to the church. Others view this as abandonment of the apostolic authority of NT Scripture - thus "withdrawal from the faith" - better known by the Greek-rooted term "apostasy". Common examples cited by more scripture-based groups include abandonment of the requirement that all pastors be "the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly"; abandonment of anti-idolatry doctrines with respect to e.g. astrology and spiritualism; abandonment of expectations of miracles and sign gifts such as healing, tongues, deliverance; abandonment of the docrtines of salvation for Universalism; abandonment of the doctrine of sin or reclassification of certain scripturally-defined sins as "normal", etc.
Churches like Mars Hill and virtually all Baptist-bloc denominations (including Trinitarian Pentecostal groups such as AofG, Foursquare, FOCA, etc.) generally hold that the authority of scripture is paramount and that sources and doctrines clearly divergent from scripture are non-authoritative, apostate or heretical. Therefore, if you wish to argue that Mars Hill's doctrine is false or inconsistent, it is really incumbent to demonstrate this ONLY by reference to scripture. Arguments from other sources will necessarily and rightly be rejected as at least non-authoritative and likely as heretical and even inspired by Satan - who always hates the Church (John 15:18, 10:10).
fine, have it your way. this church, however, is exploiting the gay community, particularly those who are afflicted with hiv/aids, for pr purposes and meanwhile won't let them through their holy doors. it's ugly and hypocritical any way you slice it.
@helenwheels74Â Just Face it, When you're unacceptable you cant force someone to accept you. It is their right! And its protected!
 @helenwheels74 You are missing something of critical importance here: the church - NO church - controls access through those "holy doors" - that is not within the defined function and authority of the Church.
Jesus said, "*I* am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." [emphasis added]
The job of the Church is merely to point to Jesus [y'shua hanazeer wamalech hajahudee] as the Way - and to publish, teach and train in the known conditions for coming to Jesus in Faith. That is all.
If you have a complaint, you should take it up with the Boss.
 @JLS1950 Isn't it interesting that of all the "Thou shalt nots" in the Bible, churches only enforce the same-sex prohibition?
If your 17 year old "christian" daughter gets knocked-up it's "an accident," not a sin like homosexuality. She's still a member of the church, even while she's shacked-up with yet another guy who isn't her husband.
When your handsome young Youth Pastor starts having sex with the 14 year old girls everyone breaths a sigh of relief and thanks god that at least he wasn't having sex with the boys.
Sorry, dude, but if you want to claim that the church excludes homosexuals because church members need to follow biblical standards, then see to it that those standards are equally applied to everyone. Otherwise it's just more of the same old hypocrisy,
Â
@Fooey Patooey!
Actually, I have been close to and even directly involved in dealing with situations very much as you describe, and I can tell you that this is NOT how these were handled. The pregnant girl was 16 - not 17 - and the issue was dealt with firmly but with compassion - the girl kept the baby, finished school, and was later married.
There were two married youth pastors who worked together for a time and both in turn became involved with their charges. Each was forced out once the matter became known. IÂ lost track of the first (an assistant) but believe he may have faced serious legal trouble due to the age of the girl. The other had the "good sense" to wait until the object of his lust turned 18 before fulfilling that lust - and he had developed knowledge of other sin that he thought to use to shield himself from effective discipline. It was no good: knowledge of the matter got out, he was forced to resign, and when the young woman was caught with him again, her status as a student at a sectarian college permitted the intervention - even as an "adult" - needed to force her to choose wisely her future course. She is now long married (to someone else) a mother of six, and involved in Christian education ministry herself.
The entire process was very painful and costly to those involved in the intervention, but the results were worth it: a family preserved and four young children who did not have to grow without their father; a man's career was salvaged and rehabilitated under Godly discipline and oversight; a young woman was saved from a dead-end relationship she would have found unfulfilling, frustrating, filled with bitterness and regret, and in all likelihood abusive (the youth pastor would not have been able to father - much less support - another family, and he could never have worked in his profession again). The young woman's own father was saved from a shock and great heartache during a time of life-threatening health issues. Unfortunately, the hidden "shield" sin was not discovered until several years later - and was not widely believed even then - and in the then-unexplained backlash to the successful intervention, three major ministries of the church were savagely destroyed: a dynamic music ministry, an extremely dynamic and innovative Christian Education ministry, and a compassionate visitation ministry were all lost as staff were forced out for reasons that only became clear much later.
Hypocrisy exists everywhere, but scripture does provide very specific instruction on dealing with sin in the church - and this instruction was followed quite closely in both all of these cases. And indeed the entire outcome - both positive and negative - was an object lesson in how utterly critical it is to handle sin in the church *precisely* as directed in New Testament scripture! It is of particular importance to understand, however, that in these cases it was never considered an acceptable argument that the sin was "just normal": it was always treated as a violation, and ceasing from the sin was always treated as a condition not only of any rehabilitation back into ministries, but of any continued membership and involvement in the operation and governance of the church congregation itself (but not of continued attendance per se) all as instructed in scripture.
@JLS1950 WONDERFULLY stated!
All churches are divisive - it's part of their business plan. Check out the invocation in Olympia about god's plan for marriage - as though he/she/it came to the legislature to tell them.
 @contraryjim Actually, you are being divisive.
This makes me sad! It isn't the policy or the statement that makes me sad though. What is making me sad is the controversy. Once again we are unable to put aside our differences to focus on the greater good. Christ called us to love each other, not to hate. I am assuming that most people who don't have a belief in God or who are unsure of their beliefs in God also teach/tell their children not to hate.Â
I wish we could come together to care for the widows and orphans, to care for the dying and focus on those individuals rather than ourselves.
What does it truly matter how someone contracted the AIDS virus? Do you need to know how they did in order to provide comfort/care? Let the doctors ask those questions and let the caregivers just give care.
Â
 @plet Please be careful not to confuse adherence to scriptural standards with "hate". In times past, many societies used to kill people who practiced these "lifestyles". The church - the biblical New Testament Church - does not do that. But it does have standards to uphold - or more correctly - followers of Jesus Christ in accordance with scripture are under some obligation to try to follow the instructions given to them thereby. We do not reject GLBT people from visiting and worshiping in the church - but we do not accept into church membership or even as Born Again, those who continue to act in open rebellion against the clear standards of the Word of God - because we are warned by those very standards not to do so.Â
@JLS1950 Thank you for the correction - hate was a poor choice of words on my part. I felt that most of the responses to the article were hateful and hurtful towards anyone who has any type of religious beliefs.  I am a committed follower of Christ and completely understand your points.Â
I fully apologize for the confusion.Â
Wondering about those of you who so energetically and condescendingly belittle the beliefs of Christians... would you do the same to the beliefs of orthodox Jews? Â
Â
If not, what's the difference? Â They believe much of the same Bible. Â
Â
As I drove home today I passed a group of orthodox Jews walking in my neighborhood. Â I certainly don't share their views (which include the much referred to book of Leviticus). Â But I thought how glad I am to live in a country with religious tolerance and freedom. Â
Â
The hatred displayed here on KOMO today is disheartening to say the least. Â
Â
As American adults we should be able to disagree about emotional topics without such ugliness.
Â
Read through nearly all the posts and while I don't know this Mars Hill church, it sounds like they are sitting on a fence of some kind. I'm a Christian but I don't go to church much as I haven't found a church that doesn't have a lot of judgers and critics in it that can make your attendance a living hell. If they aren't throwing stones at each other, they delight in throwing stones at newcomers or anybody different to them in any way. I think that's what a lot of people are against - not God, not Jesus but the supposed followers of God and Jesus. Many church members need to take stock of themselves and their own lives, quit judging, and quit throwing rocks. Their leaders also need to live better lives so that their flock can follow.  I believe Jesus said the person who was without sin could throw the first stone - that's what I believe in. I'm definitely not perfect, so why should I judge someone else. I know many gays and my wonderful boss is gay - they are all hard working, tax paying people who are all in this boat with everybody, so quit judging and start listening and helping - and forget this AIDS/HIV being a 'gay' disease - I thought that attitude left in the 80's?  Sorry for the soapbox... but sometimes this judging really grates on my nerves.
 @Elaine2 Sounds pretty judgmental to me Elaine. Lone Ranger Christians tend to be that way. The fact that you can't find a church good enough for you says something more about you than it does the churches that you ridicule. Churches are full of flawed people, who only by the grace of God stand, and grow and mature together in His family, called the Church. Either you are a saint or you are an ain't. Which is it? Are you on the outside throwing stones, or on the inside growing and maturing in your faith. Tired of people like you calling everyone judgmental when you violate that very passage yourself. Take the log out Elaine.
 @Elaine2 Mars Hill is essentially a Conservative Baptist church with perhaps a bit of slant toward even Regular Baptist doctrine especially with respect to Predestination (Strict Calvinism.) I do not believe Mars Hill throws rocks or even stony words - that seems to be coming more from the side of her detractors such as some posters here.
I do not personally gravitate toward Mars Hill - I have certain issues with Strict Calvinism as a doctrine - based on the parable of the talents - and I am a Tongue-Speaking Trinitarian Pentecostal Christian at heart anyway, even if I presently worship among a bunch of Presbyterians. However, I quite support Mars Hill on maintaining standards with respect to church membership and the adherence of members to established doctrine. If Mars Hill fell to the sort of behavior seen in the very unscriptural Westboro church, I would have much harsher things to say about that - but I have not seen such behavior from Mars Hill.
I also know gay people whom I respect at least professionally and socially. But I by no means would call a practicing GLBT person a biblical Christian - the behavior is clearly prohibited of Christians by the scripture (along with a bunch of other behavior classed by scripture as either immoral or idolatrous) and anyone calling himself or herself a "Christian" and yet continuing in such behavior is IMO in open rebellion against God. But that is not a sin that God directs me to "punish".
Where the "judging" is occurring - and it does grate on my nerves - is people condemning Christians and an entire church simply for holding fast to some of the most basic tenets of Biblical Christian faith and doctrine. This argument is very much akin to condemning Jews (and Muslims for that matter) because they refuse to eat pork - and it is very much the same sort of condemnation that Jews in particular remember each year (roughly in late February) from the book of Esther:
Â
"There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them [to live]. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries."
Â
This is the sort of attitude - usually expressed in restrictive legislation - that many Christians in particular first came to this land and helped found this nation explicitly to escape.
@JLS1950 - I do agree with you. I didn't mean Mars Hill members throw rocks, just so many churches do. Yes, a lot of people who don't believe in anything are the really big mass of rock throwers and that's not just my opinion but I have had that comment made many a time when I talk to unbelievers about my position in Christ - that I come across more sincere and non-judgemental than people who don't even believe in God or anything at all.  I come from the line of Christians who came to this land to escape religious persecution and of course government persecution from theocracies. As a believer in Christ, we should love the sinner and hate the sin, as God does. We have freedom of religion in this country, thanks to our ancestors, and I do hope it continues but we, as Christians need to fight for it and not get wrapped up in our own petty quarrels among ourselves (although truth be told, most of those that call themselves Christians are far from it). Thanks for your comments, you and I agree. :)
 @Elaine2 Exactly! The main problem is that Mars Hill is not the one raising the issue, the anti-religoius haters on KOMO, along with KOMO themselves are. That has been my point all along. IF you go to a church that states that they hate these people or those people, then yes that is the problem. So far all that KOMO and Ms Toce can come up with is that Mars Hill (along with about 90% of the religious) think that homosexuality is a sin, nothing about hating anyone. I also agree with you that the bigger issue is KOMO and Ms Toce are insinuating that it is a gay disease, since Mars Hill said nothing about gays, just that they are moving closer to help those with AIDS. By KOMO creating, and yes KOMO created this controversy, THEY are the ones who are continuing the "AIDS is a gay disease" lie!
@sometimesright - Aaah, yes, the KOMO posters who are really more stone throwing than church goers. I have noticed the KOMO news does like to blast out with a bunch of innuendo and garbage a lot of the time. Thanks!
I see the bigot brigade is still at full strength.
Tell me... If Mars Hill were to rebuke everyone with HIV, what would the outcry be?
Â
Â
Â
 @bobalouie It is more important for the anti-religious bigots on here to go after the Bible than for anyone to help AIDS victims. Escpecially since Mars Hill said nothing about gays in their press release, they just said they were going to help AIDS victims. Evidentily these people will go to great lengths, even if they are insinuating that gays are the only ones who get AIDS in order to attack a church! These are the real bigots!
Why is it that all you folks that don't believe in Jesus and the bible keeping using scriptures in your comments to enforce your beliefs. Your contradicting yourselves. And the only hateful comments i've seen posted on here have been by folks who don't believe in God. Why you folks so mad? Answer me that!
I have read every single commet to this point (oldest to newest) - NOBPDY who is opposed to Driscoll & his cult have said they do not believe in Jesus and/or that they are not Christians. They use the passages as a way of pointing out the contradictions of the other side, who use cherry-picked passages to support what they feel is "the one true word" on any subject, trying to use them to show how the other side is wrong.
 @LocalLady Usually, I enjoy your remarks and find them agreeable and positive. Here however, you are - in my opinion - getting a bit off track. First of all, at least one poster expressing strong opinions against Mars Hill Church describes him-/herself as a "bisexual Jew" (and not particularly as a "Messianic bisexual Jew" - which would be pretty unusual.) I doubt somehow that this person "believe[s] in Jesus" in the Christian sense that He is Savior and Lord - very God and very Man - even as I doubt this person is a "NOBPDY".
Let's try to parse this all just a bit. Mark Driscoll is a Conservative-Baptist trained pastor. His doctrine is in line with most Conservative Baptist and perhaps even Regular Baptist churches. In other words, he is fairly mainstream protestant evangelical, albeit on the conservative side. Based on his history, I strongly suspect that I know precisely which church Driscoll grew up in - where a good friend, colleague and Christian brother served as Deacon over many terms and years. It is a strong bible-believing church with a clear gospel message. But it is certainly no "cult". Likewise, Mars Hill may be an adaptation of Conservative Baptist polity and worship for inner-city churches; but based on the statements on the church website, I doubt that it is a "cult".
As for cherry-picked passages, I see most of this coming from the anti-christian side - not from gospel defenders. I should note that I became and was discipled as a follower of Jesus Christ in THE oldest and at one time largest Pentecostal church in Seattle - which founded and long operated one of the most prestigious Pentecostal bible colleges in the world, training and preparing pastors, teachers and missionaries who spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Africa, India & Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, China, Japan, Central and South America, Alaska, Canada and across the U.S., among other places. I was led in my first public prayer of confession of Jesus by the late Dean of that school, and I took classes in that school in the late 1970's and early '80's under some of the best bible teachers in the world. I am not the most proficient student of bible, but I have spent a lot of time studying it and at times also preaching it. I know how well the bible fits together and agrees with itself... I know which parts of the scripture are incumbent upon Christians to obey and why... or why not (for example why we may eat pork and shellfish and do not stone adulterers and homosexuals!)
Yet before I became a Christian, I grew up and studied in a whole succession of real cults where there really was scripture "cherry picking" and deliberate misinterpretation: I know "cherry picking" when I see it.
The church I presently attend (which is not Pentecostal) has hosted a tent city several times and operates a food pantry and community assistance program. Mars Hill is creating an outreach to the inner city, to the homeless and needy, and to those afflicted by AIDS. These are all as commanded by Matt 25, among other passages.
As I have stated here already, Mars Hill is a CHURCH - and it both teaches and rightly expects member-believers to at least try to obey certain core doctrines of Christian faith. It is the Commission of Christians to obey the instructions of Jesus Christ (John 14:15, et al.) to preach the Gospel and make disciples for Jesus (Matt 28) to see to the needs of the hungry and thirsty, the homeless and ill-clothed, the sick and the imprisoned - whether believing or not (Matt 25) - and to WARN their generation of the ultimate judgements of God while opening the door of escape (Ezek 3:19, Acts 20:31, et al.) We do not force you to believe - but that does not mean we allow those who refuse to submit to the teaching of scripture to come in unto us and modify the established doctrines of the Church to suit and to accede to their own personally favored sin.
 @LocalLady You are usually pretty reasonable on here, where exactly in all of this has Mars Hill done ANYTHING except they are moving to Capital Hill to help with the homeless, marginalized and those with AIDS? What does the rest of this bigoted mumbo-jumbo coming from the REAL fanatics have to do with it? They are the ones who are manufacturing this controversy, not Mars Hill!
 @LocalLady BTW..yes that was a compliment..you are truly usually pretty reasonable, even if I think you are way off base here! I live by the true golden rule..I do unto others, regardless of what they beleive on any side of the aisle, as I would like them to do to me. I don't care what your religious belief, lifestyle, hairstyle, skin color, etc, etc you have! I would welcome your help with AIDS if I had it!
 @LocalLady No the issue is that Mars Hill thinks that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore according to the real bigots in this entire thread, they should not be allowed to help anyone with AIDS, even though the majority of people who have AIDS are not gay. Also, MH said that they are trying to work with Lifelong Aids Alliance, which others are pointing out is a mostly gay organization (even though I can find nothing on their website that states this). So what is it?  Is Mars Hill a gay hating organization? If so, then why are they trying to reach out to what others are saying is a mostly gay neighborhood (which of course is only 4.5% gay) and a mostly gay AIDS relief group? If THEY are the ones that are so bigoted, then why are they reaching out to this supposedly mostly gay population as you all are suggesting? Which is it? You can't have this all? I have come to the conclusion that unless you completely agree with the gay lifestyle, bigots on that side of the aisle treat you with far more disdain than any Mark Driscoll ever have. Proof in point is this article and those that are defending it. Your last line really shows where you are off base...how many times do I have to repost the entire paragraph where they brought up AIDS? It was the last thing they said as to why they were moving there. First they brought up being close to business men and women, then to be close to their partners in ministry at the Union Gospel Mission, then to be closer to the homeless and the marginalized and FINALLY almost as an afterthought so that they could minister to those afflicted with AIDS....they said not a thing about gay people...NOTHING! It was people like you, KOMO and Ms. Tuce who drew the illogical line of false causality between the two, in order to do a hit peice on Mars Hill! Finally, you all continually draw the more dangerous line with your reasoning that only gays get AIDS...once again more heteros get it than gays! This was debunked, ironically by gays, back in the 80s. This disease does not care what sexual preference you have and unless we all, regardless of our beliefs come together, we will never defeat it. If you don't like Mars Hill, then don't go there, it doesn't mean that if someone who goes there wants to give medical, financial or even a hug to someone who has AIDS that you should fight it because of your hatred of what their personal religious beliefs are...THAT is the essense of intolerance and bigotry! Doing for others even when you don't agree with them is the essense of compassion.
 @sometimesright:Â
Thank you for calling me "usually pretty reasonable" - I'll take that as a compliment.
Â
I think the entire issue is that MH has a reputation for Driscoll using his "church" as a cudgel to beat people about the head and shoulders if they do not agree 100% with him & his preaching (figuratively speaking) and follow him blindly in lockstep.
Â
I read the article in the Stranger - and I have also read his "Doctrine" book - I find the book repulsive & repugnant in the way he treats women & in the way he treats the LGBTQ community. He appears to find it more important for his follows to worship & revere himself thatn to worship & rever God and Jesus.  "Loyalty oaths", having to "attone" by writing out a "sexual & attachment history", some of the other things that have been reported - hell, even the RCR does not require that for Confession!
Â
MH has REPEATEDLY come out in the past as being anti-LGBTQ, and as stating that AIDS/HIV is the "rpice that gays are paying for sinning. Then, they have the gall & balls to say they are moving closer to Capital Hill "to minister to those with AIDS/HIV". You can see, I hope, why most people are not taking them seriouswly, and many are calling them oout.
 @LMcK4Him I havent made a single hateful comment. I have never used scripture in my posts. I have on the other hand made it clear that I am not pleased that any establishment religious or otherwise is discriminating people for being who they are.
 @Raven A. Reeves  @LMcK4Him Raven, Christianity sets certain standards for personal behavior among its adherents only. The choice is very simple: if you like to eat beef and want to continue, don't try to become a Hindu; if you like to eat pork and wish to continue, then don't try to become a Muslim or a Jew; and if you like to have sex with people who are "just like you" - and you think you have a "right" to do so and wish to continue to exercise that "right" - then don't try to become or to call yourself a Born-Again, Biblical Christian so that you can become a member of Mars Hill Church! It is all JUST THAT SIMPLE!
Nobody is forcing you to join that church - so why do you feel you have a right to tell those who have joined that that their decision about their own lives is invalid? Who is being hateful here?
 @Raven A. Reeves yet it is OK for KOMO, Ms Toce and others to discriminate against Mars Hill for nothing other than saying they are moving to help AIDS victims? Oh I see, as long as people agree with you then it is OK. If they are religious then they are discriminating?
@sometimesright - I believe it is KOMO stirring the pot again. I think they do it just to rile up the posters here.
 @amylamb15 Yes, you would be assuming you give more, but I don't need to rely on a warped fallacy of arguing from authority in order to hold up my weak (and hypocritical) stance as you seem to!Â
 @amylamb15 So you do about as much good in a tiny way as Mars Hill is doing. If someone came along and said just because you are bi that you shouldn't be allowed to help, would that make any more sense than what you are doing here to Mars Hill? Hypocrisy AGAIN!
 @amylamb15 Once again...read the whole statement. They said that they were opening a church in the downtown area to be closer to their business men and women, the homeless, the marginal and then those with AIDS. Are you once again still defending that antiquated idea that this is a gay disease? It is not! More people who are hetero have AIDS than gays, I would even bet up on Capital Hill that is true. You and your buddies here are the ones MANUFACTURING a bigoted line of reasoning, not Mars Hill! Tough if your hypocrisy is shining through.Â
 @Raven A. Reeves  @sometimesright Raven, if you are sick and go to the doctor, does that mean the doctor "hates" you? If you were hungry and you went to a church and they gave you food - and you did not like their doctrine - would that mean the "hate" you?
Come on, Raven, who is REALLY expressing the "hatred" here? Are you really so intolerant that you must accuse anyone who chooses to live not as you live as "hating" you?
 @sometimesright AND AGAIN, POINT OUT WHERE I SAID ANYTHING THAT MATCHES THAT DESCRIPTION. Also, please address how not allowing a person to be a member of a Christian organization due to their sexual orientation doesn't completely fall into this bigot category???
 @sometimesright I am a monthly contributor to many organizations including the Red Cross, ASPCA,, ACLU and the Washington United For Marriage. I volunteered through phone banks when Ref. 74 was running and thanks to people like me, and in turn, unlike yourself, Washington is a state that believes in marriage equality. It just goes to show that your opinion is the minority. Repeating the same rhetoric isn't getting any point across. In addition, you have proven to be quite intolerant yourself while spouting off about intolerance. Slinging insults with ridiculous analogies and making uninformed opinions about people you know nothing about is everything I stand against. You've made your opinions and beliefs quite clear in your so called "arguments". It's just sad that you can't notice the flaws in your own logic. I'm just assuming I give more back to the welfare of the community than you, my friend.
 @sometimesright Once again, I challenge you to find a quote of mine that represents bigotry. You cannot. Just saying something doesn't make it so. LOOK EVERYONE, I'M A UNICORN!! *poof!!! turns into a unicorn* ASININE.
 @sometimesright MY intolerant brain? Are you even reading what you are posting? You are spouting ignorant gibberish. Washington, DC has one of the highest percentage of HIV "infected" people in the nation. When Mars Hill opened there did they release a statement about "helping" the (to quote Jenn W) leprous colony???? NO. It was clearly an insinuation targeting the gay community. I am really and sincerely hoping you aren't so obtuse as not to recognize Cap Hill as being a very liberal, and diverse and LGBTQ friendly community. One, of which, I'm a very proud member. I tolerate anything but intolerance.
 @sometimesright Clearly, you have formed your own opinion, misread my post, and are passionate about defending this cult (I purposely used inflammatory language in describing Mars Hill Church as a cult, just to piss you off.) I have attended Mars Hill and I have numerous friends and clients who attend services there. So while, I am not an "insider" (I couldn't be anyway, because I am an unmarried woman) I do have first hand experience in dealing with MHC. Since you have clearly dug in your heels in defending an organization that you admit to having little knowledge of, I see no point in continuing to dialogue with you.
@Jenn W So you have personally attended this church? They also didn't JUST say they were going to help AIDS victims, did you read the whole thing that she posted from the Stranger, oh wait, you can't, the Stranger only posted the part about AIDS victims. Once again here is the WHOLE press release, you will notice that AIDS victims are only a small part of who they are "targeting"...
"This is an incredible oppo!tunity to be a ministry hub for downtown Seattle as it will allow us to better serve the business men and women in our city, as well as the homeless and marginalized, as we're closer to one of our ministry pa!tner, Seattleâs Union Gospel Mission,â says Tim Gaydos, lead pastor of the Downtown Seattle church.âAlso, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected withAIDS on the hill.â CrossCut News recently repo!ted on some of the churchâs community reach effo!ts".
Â
Do you have proof of all the accusations you just leveled by the way? Considering that there seem to be a lot of women who go there I somhow doubt you have any except for the usual bigoted views that you just expressed! I also have been looking through Lifelong's website and it says NOTHING about only serving gays. Even if your assumption were true, if Mars Hill is as bigoted as you and others say, then why go to Lifelong which according to you only serves LBGT? Everything you all say contradicts itself and points the accusing fingers back at your bigoted selves! Nothing Mars Hill has said or done warrants what you are attempting to do here!
 @sometimesright It appears from your comments that you are trying to establish a sane base to form an opinion from what you have read. What you have admitted yourself is that you know very little about Mars Hill. ["Even though I know very little about Mars Hill, I find them far more tolerant than you, KOMO, Ms Tuce and the Stranger are showing yourselves to be!"]
Â
Well, most of the people who are upset in this forum probably know a lot more about Mars Hill's congregation than you, first hand. If you like your women subservient and silent, your men sexually dominant, and your church leaders to control your every behavior, then sure, I can see why you would think that Mars Hill is very tolerant. Mars Hill is so eager to spread their message to the leprous colony that is Capital Hill that they blatantly lie about their efforts. Capital Hill must be so"infected with AIDS" that surely they can do good deeds for a segment of society in which they openly condemn. Reaching out to those sinners who are "infected with AIDS" is only possible if those so called sinners want their particular brand of help. Life Long does have patient/clients that are hetero, but they openly and primarily serve the GLBT community. So, anyone can try to argue that MHC is just trying to do god's work, but no on can tell me they don't have ulterior motives.Â
 @amylamb15 Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Yep, that about explains you here! BTW, lets assume that only gay people get AIDS (which of course is silly) and lets assume that Mars Hill only moved here to help those gays with AIDS...how does that fit the description of a bigot? A group who sets out to help those they disagree with?Â
 @amylamb15 I also see how you like to draw conclusions all over the place. Only 4.5% of Capitol Hill is gay. 4.5%! Maybe they weren't "targeting a gay neighborhood", but targeting Captial Hill and not just the 4.5% that are gay? Did you ever think of that in your intolerant brain?
 @amylamb15 and what part of the word "intend" do you not understand? They have not moved there yet, they have not set anything up yet, they follwing was stated by YOU above,  "Mars Hill spokesman Justin Dean explained that congregants  INTENDED to teach to the neighborhood's "AIDS victims" about Jesus and the ministry was "at the BEGINING stages of volunteering with the Lifelong AIDS Alliance". Once again, here roll the bigots like you looking for any reason to attack this church for saying nothing but wanting to help AIDS patients, not just gays (which once again for you to be upset YOU have to draw the line to only gays having AIDS, which is a bigger issue in my book). You also had to go dig up an article by the VERY biased and bigoted Stranger, who did whatever they could do to discredit this church for wanting to help with AIDS patients? Look, I could care less who wants to help with AIDS patiients, I don't care if they are gay, bi, Jews, Christians, Muslims or atheists, black, white, purple. If you have the compassion to work with those who are sick with this horrible disease (that affects ALL of us, not just gays as you seem to think), then I will applaud you, whether or not I agree with your stance on my lifestyle or others! That is what TRUE tolerance is about, which even though I know very little about Mars Hill, I find them far more tolerant than you, KOMO, Ms Tuce and the Stranger are showing yourselves to be!
 @sometimesright It isn't listed in THIS article. Unlike you, I read many different media venues so I can have an educated opinion on the matter. From the Stranger:
Â
Mars Hill Church Not Actually Volunteering with Lifelong AIDS Alliance Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Well, this is a PR meltdown.
For those just tuning in, it began this morning when Mars Hill Church pastor Tim Gaydos issued a statement celebrating his parish's new proximity to a neighborhood filled with AIDS. As he put it in an e-mail, "being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected with AIDS on the hill.â Asked at about 11:30 a.m. what sort of HIV/AIDS outreach they were doingâand how being one-third of a mile closer to a gay neighborhood empowered the church to conquer the diseaseâMars Hill spokesman Justin Dean explained that congregants intended to teach to the neighborhood's "AIDS victims" about Jesus and the ministry was "at the beginning stages of volunteering with the Lifelong AIDS Alliance." Why would this estimable nonprofit associate itself with a church that won't even allow gay members?
And that's where the question stood until now.
It turns out, Mars Hill Church hasn't filled out any volunteer application forms or undergone a screening process to affiliate itself with Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Kelly Bray, a spokeswoman for the outreach charity, says by phone. She says, in fact, that the church has "no relationship" with her group. Mars Hill did call Lifelong about the possibility of volunteering last fall, but they hadn't heard again from the church until todayâ"around lunchtime," Bray adds. You mean, the church only touched base again with Lifelong after The Stranger started inquiring about the church's purported Capitol Hill AIDS ministry? "I think the timeline of that synced up," Bray confirmed. "We have not responded yet. We are still working out our response internally."
But would Lifelong even work with Mars Hill? After all, the megachurch conglomerateâwhich has 14,000 members in 11 branchesâreportedly doesn't allow gay people to be members. (Asked why the church bans gay members, a Mars Hill spokesman didn't comment.) It seems a little unusual for a notoriously cultish and homophobic mission to target a gay neighborhood, weirdly brand the area as a hotbed of disease, and then telegraph its plans to use a well-regarded nonprofit as a vehicle for proselytizing their divisive version of Christianity, right?
"We don't discriminate against organizations that walk through our doors," Bray said. "If Mars Hill is interested in potentially volunteering, they would be made aware of what flies by us, the values we uphold, and individuals we work with. We would not put them in any position where they could proselytize." However, Bray was also noncommittal. "We do make some case-by-case evaluations... I can't say that we would be full speed ahead with bringing them on board, but at the beginning we will treat them the same as any other community group."
Â
WHAM BAM, THANK YOU MAAM. AGAIN, YOU HAVEN'T QUITE GRASPED THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD BIGOT. I AM THE FARTHEST FROM IT.
@amylamb15 Where did Mars Hill "imply" the connection? They didin't and yes you and the rest of the people who are CREATING the connection are the bigots in this conversation. Also, where did Mars Hill say that they had a connection to Lifelong Aids Aliance here? I just read the entire press release that this article is written about and here is the entire quote that YOU and your pals here at KOMO are distorting, "This is an incredible oppo!tunity to be a ministry hub for downtown Seattle as it will allow us to better serve the
business men and women in our city, as well as the homeless and marginalized, as we're closer to one of our ministry pa!tner, Seattleâs Union Gospel Mission,â says Tim Gaydos, lead pastor of the Downtown Seattle church.âAlso, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected withAIDS on the hill.â CrossCut NewsÂ
recently repo!ted on some of the churchâs community reach effo!ts". So what is wrong with that? They said not a thing about gays, Lifelong AIDS Aliance, etc. Nothing. You and your bigotted buddies saw an opportunity to attack someone for doing nothing but saying that they are helping AIDS victims. You then drew the line to connect gays to this, even though they said nothing about it. Nothing but bigotry and a hypocritical tolerance!
 @sometimesright 1.) "This is nothing more than militant bigotry on those who hate all things religious" - I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. 2.) I AM A BISEXUAL JEW. My congregation would never deem me "unacceptable" of membership. 3.) I'm not sure you have a firm grasp of the definition of "bigot". Please refer to a bigoted comment that I made. 4.) I highly doubt you could find many who think alcoholism, drug addictions and smoking are a good idea. Many addictions are however, DISEASES, just like lung cancer is. Not all smokers get cancer, not all lung cancer patients are smokers. This would have been a more suitable analogy for your argument about the fact that AIDS is no longer a "gay" disease. 5.) Although I passionately disagree with discrimination on any level (not accepting gays into a church 'membership' counts) I do agree that the connection between this and homosexuals was not said directly, but implied. I have more of a problem with the fact that Mars Hill has had NO application submitted to volunteer, has NO relationship with the Lifelong AIDS Alliance, which was backed by a spokesperson of the group. The overtly false statement released by a Mars Hill spokesperson that they were in the beginning stages is a LIE... which, and correct me if I'm wrong, is a SIN. The hypocrisy of Mars Hill is what angers people... not their charity work.
 @sometimesright BTW..churches DO help alcoholics, but they don't believe that being one is a good idea. They do help drug addicts and even run hospitals for lung cancer patients, even though they don't agree with smoking and doing drugs. Just because a church does not support an activity doesn't mean they can't love and help those who do it! Also, NON of you have answered my bigger challenge. Since Mars Hill said nothing about gays in their release, is AIDS a gay disease then? You all are the ones who are making the connection between the two, not Mars Hill. They simplys said they were helping AIDS patients. You are the ones who drew the connection, not them. And if you believe (as archaic as it is) that only gays get AIDS, then wouldn't Mars Hill then be helping those that you are saying they supposedly hate?Â
 @amylamb15 I said nothing about what I believe, I said it all in analogies. My point is that for some reason Mars Hill is not allowed to help those with AIDS because they think homosexuality is a sin?  As for the 90%, if you add in Muslims, Jews and most Christians, I doubt I am far off. I also never even said I was religious. My biggest problem is that this entire controversy has been manufactured and continued by people like YOU who are the real bigots.  The headline states, " Church's AIDS Comments Stir controversy in Seattle". There only "AIDS Comment" was that they were moving closer to help those who had it! How does that stir controversy? This is nothing more than militant bigotry on those who hate all things religious. It is no different than saying that they shouldn't be able to help any other group of people because of a stance on something else! It is silly!
 @sometimesright  @Raven A. Reeves @sometimesright... WHAT in the HOLY hell are you rambling about? In order to make any logical connection to your argument, the original comment would have to state in its context something along the lines of "homosexuals must run Mars Hill". Analogies must not be your strong suit. That being said, churches DO help alcoholics by hosting most AA meetings. In order to help find a cure for lung cancer, SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS are working on that. In order to help drug addicts, there are rehab centers and NA meetings... also held in CHURCHES. The only thing that doesn't make SENSE is your asinine analogies. I'm glad you can chalk homosexuality down to a "good" or "bad" IDEA. Who in their right mind would CHOOSE to lead a life with more difficulties? One that is subject to discrimination by the likes of you and the rest of the 90%? Where did that percentage come from anyway? Your beliefs are as outlandish and archaic as the other ridiculous Old Testament beliefs. You just don't see it because you lack the creativity and open mindedness to think outside of your religious box.
@Raven A. Reeves @sometimesright What you failing to understand is that that church nor the church i attend, "hate people."
 @Raven A. Reeves So in order to help alcoholics Mars Hill must first open a bar? In order to help those with lung cancer they have to start selling cigarettes? In order to help drug addicts they have to start shooting heroin? BTW...Mars Hill ONCE AGAIN, said not a thing about gays. It is you, Ms Toce and KOMO who drug them into it. So just because Mars Hill believes that homosexuality is a sin they shouldn't collect money to send to Africa to dig wells? That is about how much sense this article and your stance makes! I may not agree that homosexuality is a great idea, but I commend those who adopt children. I commend those in the gay community who raise money to fight AIDs, because it is all our problem, regardless of what our personal beliefs are about whether homosexuality is a good thing or not!
 @sometimesright If it was a restaurant, hotel, or any other establishment pulling this, then I would be saying the same thing. I can accept anything except for hate. If that church were doing the same thing to the black community, or Hispanic community I would still be upset. I do not like how they are so quick to judge someone based on who they are. I see, and accept everyone no matter their race, religion, or sexual orientation. I have no problem with them helping the AIDS community. I am upset however with them discriminating to those who are in the GLBT community.