Bill Gaither's side of the story.

First of all, I am glad to see that article. I live only about an hour from the gaithers and I am glad to hear that was at least exaggerated.
I would like to see the actual video though.

I don't like the song either, I am quite familiar with it but it would never be sung in our church.

Knowing what he did, Gaither should have stayed as far away from her as he could. Even mentioning what he did was unwise.

But as far as apologies, I doubt you will ever see many of those on here.
Christians are supposed to be humble but in my experience, they can be the most proud and arrogant in the world

 

JUst to add, I got an email today retracting a previous email from someone who had passed the misinfo along.

To be honest, what was Gaither even doing getting a picture with her in the first place?
Of her AND her "partner". He was setting himself up for that one and he also shouldn't be singing that song anymore either.

Does it suprise you though that a lesbian would also ....LIE???
It appears that stevens has been behind this to give herself more credibility.

 

Too bad Jesus and His disciples didn't follow that ethic... instead a bunch of lowlifes, immoral and unworthy people somehow stumbled into the Kingdom of God. The pious religious leaders had no choice but to distance themselves from Jesus because we are known by the company we keep. Guilt always follows from association, and we can be glad that God's love extends only to those who have cleaned up appearances and have an air of respectable propriety.

 

I understand what you are saying, but she was out to gain credibility from him and he probably didn't see it coming. Getting his picture taken with her was still unwise.
The other problem I have is that Gaither talked like she started out good but then she changed. I would argue that she started out the same as she is now, she just waited until popular opinion was such that she thought she could admit it.

My whole point is that first, that song is not Biblical so he should not sing it anyway. It was unBiblical before she "went public" and it is just as muc so today. The second thing is that he still gave her a degree of credibility! SHe has NO credibity, NO value to the Christian CHurch.
Could God save her? Sure he could, but until that happens, she should be considered anti-Christ and certainly not Christian.

 

It was certainly unwise if he cared about placating those who profess Christianity but aren’t active disciples of Jesus, or believed that the image of his friendly meeting with this person somehow gives an endorsement to everything this songwriter endorses.

Personally, I’m not very concerned about ruffling the feathers of those who aren’t active disciples of Jesus (frankly, Jesus went out of His way to provoke the self-righteous “religious” establishment), and the use of his image by this songwriter for her socio-political purposes is hardly his fault. Honestly, I think most people are saavy enough to know that photos of people together does not actually constitute an endorsement.

Maybe she did. The Galatians started out well and then they fell for a false gospel...

Perhaps... Or maybe she fell into that lifestyle after conversion because of unresolved issues dealing with childhood sexual abuse.

Ultimately, we don’t know, so it doesn’t do us much good to make judgments regarding a third party (Gaither) based on our ignorance of the details regarding the first party (lesbian songwriter).

Well, I glanced at the lyrics and I don’t see any problems with them. I think people are being way too literal about their criticism of that song. “Those tears”, referred to in the song lyric, are not just tears of unhappiness, but seem to be related to the whole reason why the songwriter was crying (her lost, fallen condition with all of its effects). If Jesus didn’t die for that, then we don’t have much of a gospel story to tell.

As stated previously, I don’t have a problem with the song, based on the lyrics. But I do agree that the value of the song is not based on the lifestyle of the songwriter, before, during or after its creation.

I think all he did was to affirm her songwriting for that song, and affirm her as a person. I didn’t hear him condone any lifestyle choices or personal issues. (Jesus also had that annoying habit of allowing people to have a bit of dignity, even if they were not accepted by the religious crowd.)

To me, she has only the credibility that anyone else might have. If she has demonstrated to me that her word can’t be trusted, then she will have no credibility with me.

Certainly, no propaganda value to the “Christian” Church... but I think God measures value quite a bit differently than lots of so-called Christian leaders.

I think she is very valuable to God, no matter her current situation. Therefore, I have to consider her valuable since I am a disciple of Jesus.

If she has not already born again.

Antichrist? Um, no... I don't think it has gone that far yet.

If she is following a sinful lifestyle (whether it be homosexual, self-righteous religious Pharisee, heterosexually unfaithful or out of wedlock, etc.) then she should not be considered part of the church.

 

I said "anti-Christ" you quoted "Antichrist" that is a big difference.
"anti-Christ" means a lifestyle and message that is opposed to the true Gospel.
"Antichrist" refers to the Antichrist.

I am sorry if I confused the two.

None of us have value to Christ in and of ourselves. The beauty of the Gospel is that Christ can take worthless sinners like us and turn us into something He can use.

 

Actually, I was not referring to the "Antichrist" of Revelation, but simply someone who has purposefully set their lives against Christ.

I know next to nothing about Marsha Stevens, but homosexuals who identify as believers usually do not purposefully intend to set their lives against Christ. They often come to some belief that their sexuality is somehow exempted from their relationship with God.

I doubt Marsha Stevens believes she is standing in opposition to God.

Sorry I didn't communicate well. (I expected you to read my mind! )

Our value to God is not basd on some sort of pragmatic inherent usefulness, but in the fact that we are part of His creation. The parable of the prodigal son demonstrates that very clearly. In a pragmatic sense, the father in that story was better off without his wasteful son. Yet Jesus showed our Heavenly Father's heart is not self-centered.

I disagree.

The beauty of the gospel is that instead of rejected us and created others who might be more USEFUL, God decided to redeem those who actively and willfully rebelled against Him and brought us into His confidence again as honored members in His family.

 

Well, first she is a lesbian so let's see what God word has to say about that.

From Romans 1:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



It doesn't paint a pretty picture of her does it?
Of course we all are deserving of death for that matter but people have gotten used to sodomy to the point that it is just a nuisance and not really an abomination like it should be, like God says.

 

While I agree that Bill Gaither could have shown better judgement, to say he shouldn't sing the song anymore goes a little too far. A lot of people only know the song from the Gaithers and not the lyricist. It was written, presumably, at a time before the lyricist fell into her current state, and though she was not saved at the time she wrote it (doctrine of preservation of the saints), that does not mean that God hasn't or couldn't use it.

I am sure there are some hymns that may have been written by people who backslid in later years. Does that mean they should be removed from the hymnal? If you want to say he shouldn't sing it because it is not doctrinally correct, then you may have a valid point, but to say it simply because of who wrote it, I think is presumptuous.

Dave

P.S. - I responded before reading the full thread. I see you do make a doctrinal arguement later on and on that basis I would agree with you. I just couldn't see throwing out a song only because the person who wrote it went bad.

 

You may not have seen some of my other threads but I as well as others made it clear that it was wrong because of the words of the song are not Biblically accurate and not because of her lifestyle.
In other words, it would be wrong no matter who wrote it.
God died to save sinner from the sin, He didn't dir for those "tears"

 

Since we’re communicating through a text medium, I can’t get a “tone” from you to determine if you are being unbearably condescending or trying to be sincerely helpful.

I’ll assume you are trying to be helpful.

You quoted a portion of Paul’s panoramic introduction to humankind’s sin that begins the teaching of the letter to the Romans and tried to misapply that to a specific person’s life. In Romans, Paul is teaching a progression of sin for humankind, not a specific person.

I’m guessing you are responding to the following statements which I made in an earlier post (if I am wrong, please correct me):

Notice what I have actually said here:

1.) I believe homosexuals who identify as believers are usually deceived about the relationship their sexual life has with their spiritual life – there’s lots of ways this happens, and we can have that discussion if you want.

2.) I believe homosexuals who identify as believers do not purposefully intend to set their lives against Christ nor do they believe they are actually standing in opposition to God.

3.) I avoid using the word, “antichrist” (or your preferred version, “anti-christ”), to describe those who are merely lost in sin. Yes, there is a very real sense (and I emphasize this when I teach scripture) that lost people are in rebellion against God, but the rebellion against God is not as much a result of purposeful intent, as it is the natural state of things in this world that is led by the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eye, and the boastful pride of life.

It doesn’t paint a pretty picture of any of us.

You seem to imply that I don’t think that homosexuality is an abomination, just a nuisance... That’s nonsense.

I’m just trying to point out that sexual perversions (whether heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) are perverse and complicated things that entrap a shocking number of people... including well-known professed Christians.

If all you want to do is condemn and reject from a religious perspective, then your job is easy. Quote some proof texts about the evils of sexual sin, reject the sinner and move on to your next subject.

But if you want to be a disciple of Jesus, empowered by the gospel of Christ that can redeem and free people from these kinds of sin, then you need to understand the situation, work with these people as those who have value to God, and teach them the way of Kingdom living so that they can find freedom through the power of Christ.

Perhaps if Marsha Stevens had been taught how to live her faith through the gospels and the character-transforming disciplines and practices (prayer, fasting, meditation, memorization, confession, secrecy, solitude, etc.) developed within the life of the church for nearly 2000 years, she wouldn’t have to try to figure out how to reconcile her homosexual desires with the good news of Christ.

 

And you’re being overly literal. The song is not designed to be a systematic theology... it’s written in the style of a personal testimony.

Those “tears” were cried because of the sinful life. Therefore, Jesus died for those tears.


If you’re going to trash songs, there are easier and much more legitimate contenders:

From the grave to the sky?

Wasn’t Jesus raised from the dead in bodily form and appeared to the disciples (and many others) for 40 days?

Therefore, does that mean that those who wrote the song (and those who sing it) are denying the resurrection? If so, they truly are antichrist.


Instead, let’s calm down and realize that songs (and sermons) are, of necessity, incomplete messages.

 

A side point; I think you're nitpicking those words way too much. The point is not the interval of time between the grave and the ascension, but the fact that He did die, and did ascend, and is at the right hand of the Father, and we lift His name on high.

 

I think you're right. That's the point I was trying to make with those who would criticize the lyrics of "For Those Tears I Died".

Yes, but it does disturb me that an important part of the life of Jesus is glossed over. The period between the resurrection and the ascension is neglected in our bible study and teaching. Jesus taught his disciples to hear His voice through both the Spirit and His physical appearances so they would be ready to do Kingdom work after His ascension.

 

I think many songs are unBiblical. And they didn't start in 1969. They go a long way back. Almost all hymnals have some doctrinal error somewhere. The problem is, Two people may agree that a hymnal has songs that are incorrect but not agree on which songs they are!
By the way, we Don't sing that song at our church either.

 

Well then, all least we agree on that! :laugh:

 

Yes, looks like we do

 

Only 31 days to go....best wishes and good luck on your first child!

 

Don't you just love jumping to conclusions?

 

Who/what are you referring to?