Fixer Upper Stars Under Fire for Attending Evangelical Church

[dqhall]

Are you that blinded of sin ... that you discredit your own Bible? How in the world do you not believe Homosexuality is not a sin when the Bible clearly tells you that people were put to death for it under the curse of the old Law. What in the world. You're almost into heresy if you condone people to live in sin without needing Christ to forgive that sin by saying they aren't sinning in the first place and the bible tells you they are .. that's heretical and endangers lives, blessings, and souls ..

You should take a look at your Bible again and prayerfully consider the words within it, in my opinion. Homosexuality is forgiven. It's not, in my opinion and review of the scripture, any worse than a heterosexual committing fornification because all sin damns, but if you're telling homosexuals it's okay to be gay, you're creating a huge stumbling block and divide between them and God and i would not want to be in your shoes ...

Titus 3:10
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

Being single and celibate is not a sin. Being married to someone of the opposite sex is not a sin. Being homosexual is a sin.

 

[RDKirk]

Being single and celibate is not a sin. Being married to someone of the opposite sex is not a sin. Being homosexual is a sin.

That debate is not actually a point in this topic.

 

[Disciple37]

Being single and celibate is not a sin. Being married to someone of the opposite sex is not a sin. Being homosexual is a sin.

I am not sure what you mean here. I agree that homosexual acts and lust are a sin. I agree that being celibate and single is not a sin as well and allows you to fully focus on the Lord if that kind of lifestyle is your calling. I also agree the marriage between one woman and one man is not a sin.

 

[Tigger45]

I really like their show, how they treat each other and how they interact with their children. This latest attack upon their preference in church attendance only makes me want to support them more.

 

[FundyJohn]

The article lists these:

“Chip and Joanna Gaines’s Pastor Preaches ‘Homosexuality is a Sin’” – blared a headline on Cosmopolitan.

“Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Church is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage,” screamed a Buzzfeed headline. “Their pastor considers homosexuality to be a ‘sin’ caused by abuse – whether the Fixer Upper couple agrees is unclear.”

And user base:

Our friends at Newsbusters tracked down this item from US Weekly:

“As a Fixer Upper fan, I would love to know @joannagaines and @chippergaines’s thoughts on their pastor’s hateful, anti-LGBT beliefs,” one viewer declared. Another went further, writing: “If Chip and Joanna Gaines end up being anti-LGBT, I am cancelling my mag subscription and ignoring their show.”

Are these what you consider "militant?"

 

[FundyJohn]

My point is that if enough people get upset about it, they start writing to HGTV (already did to ask them what they know), and boycotting the show. The article says this. They did it to another group that used to be on HGTV until HGTV had to pull their show for the media storm that caused (Benham Brothers), although those people were more open about their religion. If that doesn't cause enough trouble to bully the network into listening, they start boycotting the advertisers in the show (as the article says)

People are "asking" this about the show hosts because they want to make a fuss/social outcry if they find out it fits into their feelings of persecution and objection.

Are you claiming that consumers do not have a right to set their own standards when it comes to their consumption? If I choose a specific gun dealer because his competition is a three times married adulterer, have I been militant? If I have the right to make that decision based upon the lifestyle of a retailer, then why would homosexuals and their supporters not have the same right? I have participated in certain boycotts and if I have the right to do so why should they not have that same right?

 

[FundyJohn]

Are you that blinded of sin ... that you discredit your own Bible? How in the world do you not believe Homosexuality is not a sin when the Bible clearly tells you that people were put to death for it under the curse of the old Law. What in the world. You're almost into heresy if you condone people to live in sin without needing Christ to forgive that sin by saying they aren't sinning in the first place and the bible tells you they are .. that's heretical and endangers lives, blessings, and souls ..

You should take a look at your Bible again and prayerfully consider the words within it, in my opinion. Homosexuality is forgiven. It's not, in my opinion and review of the scripture, any worse than a heterosexual committing fornification because all sin damns, but if you're telling homosexuals it's okay to be gay, you're creating a huge stumbling block and divide between them and God and i would not want to be in your shoes ...

Titus 3:10
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

I believe the problem is the two of you are using different definitions of "homosexual." In Psychological, Sociological and Biological terms "homosexual" refers to attraction, not necessarily activity. One must not assume that "homosexual" refers only to those who participate in same sex sexual activity.

 

[Norbert L]

http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/fixer-upper-stars-under-fire-for-attending-evangelical-church

Apparently, the militant homosexuals and liberal media (buzzfeed, huffpo, etc) can't stand the fact that the couple attends an evangelical church that teaches *gasp* that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between one man and one woman.

How long until they demand HGTV cancel the show? All over the private religious beliefs if the hosts.

Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew and conservative political commentator gave a fair assessment about what's going on in America. I believe the whole 7 minutes is worth a listen. He squarely hammers the issue on its' head.

 

[RDKirk]

Ben Shapiro is generally right there, but listen to what is being said in here: "I believe eating shellfish is a sin for Jews."

The problem Western Christianity has--and, yes, I said "problem"--is that we have had the use of the king's sword to enforce what is sin for us upon pagans...forcing pagans to act as though God were their master, which is false.

Romans 6 tells us that pagans are obeying their own master, and cannot do any differently. Even if we force them to behave like Christians, behavior not done in faith to Christ is still sin. What is a sin for Christians is merely pagans obeying their own master.

Moreover, because Romans 6 tells us that pagans are obeying their master, 1 Peter tells us that dictating the behavior of people with a different master, setting ourselves up as their false masters, is itself a sin.

There has been no "win" for us in forcing pagans to act like Christians.

And that is a chicken that has come home to roost. We should expect, as the Lord warned us, of being reviled for loving those who are unlovable...but the Lord also warned us that being reviled for being obnoxious gains nothing.

 

[Disciple37]

Ben Shapiro is generally right there, but listen to what is being said in here: "I believe eating shellfish is a sin for Jews."

The problem Western Christianity has--and, yes, I said "problem"--is that we have had the use of the king's sword to enforce what is sin for us upon pagans...forcing pagans to act as though God were their master, which is false.

Romans 6 tells us that pagans are obeying their own master, and cannot do any differently. Even if we force them to behave like Christians, behavior not done in faith to Christ is still sin. What is a sin for Christians is merely pagans obeying their own master.

Moreover, because Romans 6 tells us that pagans are obeying their master, 1 Peter tells us that dictating the behavior of people with a different master, setting ourselves up as their false masters, is itself a sin.

There has been no "win" for us in forcing pagans to act like Christians.

And that is a chicken that has come home to roost. We should expect, as the Lord warned us, of being reviled for loving those who are unlovable...but the Lord also warned us that being reviled for being obnoxious gains nothing.

You're right, you cannot force unbelievers to necessarily follow the law of Christ. However, you can force the unbelievers to follow the law of the land, and if they do not want to obey the law of the land they can move, or revolt and it will be in God's hands. So, you're right in a sense, but that doesn't mean we should not set laws based upon the commandments of God. The United States is a Christian nation. It has been stated four times by the supreme court throughout our history. The problem is unchristian men have not obeyed the law of Christ in government throughout our history and allowed certain laws to be distorted or changed. Our government is getting further and further away from God, slowly but surely.

 

[RDKirk]

You're right, you cannot force unbelievers to necessarily follow the law of Christ. However, you can force the unbelievers to follow the law of the land, and if they do not want to obey the law of the land they can move, or revolt and it will be in God's hands. So, you're right in a sense, but that doesn't mean we should not set laws based upon the commandments of God.

You're just playing a game. You're still trying to use the king's sword to make pagans act like Christians.

The United States is a Christian nation. It has been stated four times by the supreme court throughout our history. The problem is unchristian men have not obeyed the law of Christ in government throughout our history and allowed certain laws to be distorted or changed. Our government is getting further and further away from God, slowly but surely.

The US was never a Christian nation. It is a nation with a lot of Christians in it, and it is a nation that was set up to follow 1 Timothy 2, to allow Christians to "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."

But to be a "Christian nation" it would have to have Christian national policies, and that has never been the case, not from the first day.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Are you claiming that consumers do not have a right to set their own standards when it comes to their consumption? If I choose a specific gun dealer because his competition is a three times married adulterer, have I been militant? If I have the right to make that decision based upon the lifestyle of a retailer, then why would homosexuals and their supporters not have the same right? I have participated in certain boycotts and if I have the right to do so why should they not have that same right?

They are hosts of the show but do not run it. You do have the right to learn about a person and judge before watching a show, movie or book they're involved in, but on the other hand, Christians in the public should not be ridiculed, flamed, mocked, or have social media storms blown up because people are snooping on them and find out they attend a church. That's a sad state of affairs and signs of this country IMO. That's the point of this article. So what if they go to a church where the pastor supports biblical marriage guidelines? As long as they didn't come out and make an issue out of it or make it part of their jobs, why should I care or not care?

 

[JCFantasy23]

Signs of the times. Just be glad that we are still able to freely worship our Lord and Savior.

Yes, thank God. Sadly I'm not sure how much longer people can be outspoken about being a Christian and stay in a public limelight job like acting.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes, thank God. Sadly I'm not sure how much longer people can be outspoken about being a Christian and stay in a public limelight job like acting.

Or own a business. . .

It seems the Nazi card has been played by Nazis. I can imagine those who oppose SSM being marked in some way, as the Jews were before there were rounded up and killed.

If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Most people are heterosexual. According to a 2012 poll about 3.4 percent of Americans described themselves as being homosexual. There are not enough gay people to get their own gay couple fixer upper show. Advertisers need to reach the larger heterosexual market.

It's not about that, though. It's not about LGBT rights (which I'm not against), but those that go overboard with politics and discriminating against anyone that doesn't' agree with them. The hosts of the show going to a church on their personal time shouldn't get anyone in an uproar to chase after them if they don't agree in gay marriage. There are plenty of straight people out there who freak out if a celebrity speaks their honest opinion on gay marriage and it's not what they want to hear. Look at Chic-fil-a disaster (and the president then only brought it up as part of an interview with a Baptist newsletter), or the Miss America contestant when a reporter asked her about gay marriage. It's the social climate that keeps getting worse.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I read the original article at Buzzfeed that Starnes is criticizing and it is not a hit piece or making out the couple to be horrible or anything like that. Certainly not worth all the drama I am seeing here.

The criticism seems to be that the church pastor advocates conversion therapy which is controversial, even within Christianity.

But overall, the author of the Buzzfeed story would be better served looking for a real story and not try to create something like she did in the article. It was kind of dumb. The Gaines's seem like a nice Christian couple and there is really nothing to criticize.

 

[FundyJohn]

They are hosts of the show but do not run it. You do have the right to learn about a person and judge before watching a show, movie or book they're involved in, but on the other hand, Christians in the public should not be ridiculed, flamed, mocked, or have social media storms blown up because people are snooping on them and find out they attend a church. That's a sad state of affairs and signs of this country IMO. That's the point of this article. So what if they go to a church where the pastor supports biblical marriage guidelines? As long as they didn't come out and make an issue out of it or make it part of their jobs, why should I care or not care?

You may care or not care but others will, or will not. The answer for you is it's none of your business, others believe it is theirs.

 

[JCFantasy23]

You may care or not care but others will, or will not. The answer for you is it's none of your business, others believe it is theirs.

Yes, but I do speak my mind if I see bullying for beliefs. I think everyone should. It hasn't gotten to this point yet, but it can lead in that direction with the way this country has been.

 

[Dave-W]

The problem Western Christianity has--and, yes, I said "problem"--is that we have had the use of the king's sword to enforce what is sin for us upon pagans...forcing pagans to act as though God were their master, which is false.

And that is a good point. Salvation is by faith; not by being sinless, and certainly NOT by legislation.

The pastor of the church I attended in college made a point that trying to force non-believers live a godly lifestyle may actually "inoculate" them to the true gospel.

 

[SolomonVII]

You're just playing a game. You're still trying to use the king's sword to make pagans act like Christians.



The US was never a Christian nation. It is a nation with a lot of Christians in it, and it is a nation that was set up to follow 1 Timothy 2, to allow Christians to "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."

But to be a "Christian nation" it would have to have Christian national policies, and that has never been the case, not from the first day.

America still does have the king's sword, even if not a king wielding it, and it includes every citizen into the process of making the laws that decide upon whose necks that sword shall fall. The purpose of a sword is not to enforce Christianity, but to make a society that is liveable and fair for everyone.
Nobody is forced without having a say. Pagans are part of the decision making process of where the sword shall fall, as are Jews, and as are Christians. There is a democratic element in determining the laws, which gives Christians a very strong say in writing the laws that will govern us all. Checks and balances have been set into place against this too, to ensure that no church becomes supreme, and that all religions and even non-religions are treated with respect. That in no way detracts from the idea that American culture and society is imbued with Christianity that is reflected into the sensibilities of its institutions.

Theocracy in a pluralistic world is not a distinctly Christian sin. It has been a problem for every people who seek to govern a pluralistic population.
America has developed a free system, in which everyone gets a say, and this includes Christians, who are still in the majority. Christians ought not be expected to defer their influence on account of being in the majority. After all, laws are still necessary, and laws that differentiate in terms of race, creed or colour are assuredly not the way to go. Justice, to be justice, must be blind to all of that.
Fortunately, it is not as if pagans and Christians and Buddhists and Jews inhabit completely different universes when it comes to morality. Morality after all is not relative. It is an absolute. If rape is wrong for a Christian, it does not therefore become right for a pagan. There are rational arguments that can be made to appeal to the moral sensibilities of all people who have been imbued with a conscience that precedes the development of any religious doctrine. Jews, for example, fully understand that religious strictures that define their religion, such as shellfish laws, are reflective of their own practices, and not elements of a universal morality- even as laws regulating the humane slaughter of food animals does have something of the universal about them. Likewise, Christians are aware that Sunday as a day of rest is a convention and not a moral imperative, even as a day of rest does have a universal moral appeal that recognizes that people are more than what their occupations define them to be. Sunday as an American day of rest does not therefore make America a theocracy with sword firmly planted against the necks of others with different sabbaths set aside, but a country with Christian conventions as part of their institutions.

Morality, even in a pluralistic society, is possible. That is not theocracy, but just common sense.