Evangelical Pastor Ken Hutcherson: 'I Am the Gayest Man I Know'
Pastor Ken Hutcherson
Dr. Ken Hutcherson, the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Redmond, Wash., posted an announcement earlier this week that many close to him – including his wife – have known for years. Hutcherson revealed that he is the "gayest man I know."
But the thing is Hutcherson is not a homosexual, nor does the happily married man have a same-sex attraction of any kind. He is, however, on a mission to take back words, phrases and symbols he believes groups, such as homosexual activists and other liberal organizations, have "hijacked" from the American lexicon.
"My frustration is that some groups have taken words and symbols away from the Church and from society in general. When I say I'm 'gay,' what I mean is that I am happy, that I am joyful and that I love people. That is precisely what a Christian ought to be so in my opinion we just need to be as gay as we can."...
This is encouraging, after being beat countless times for bearing a name given to me at birth, only to see that now on most computers I have to use for bill payment, my name is not allowed, I wonder how far something like this would go if taken seriously. I have asked a couple of pastors on sermon audio who use the word gay instead of homosexual if they cared at all and got deafening silence...
John U.K., the 6th message down form mine-- You, me, my pastor, and John MacArthur would agree:
John MacArthur wrote: Society has taken a nosedive into greater and greater evil, debauchery, violence, and corruption, and outside the church, the landscape seems filled with "modern barbarians." The temptation is strong for believers to jump into the cultural fray as self-righteous social/political reformers and condescending moralizers. All the while those self-styled Christian activists forget or ignore their true mission in the world and completely miss the answer to Schaeffer's question ["How Then Must We Live?"] -- an answer that God's Word spells out quite clearly.
As noble as a desire to reform society ...those activities are not to be the Christian's chief priorities. God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a Scripture point of view. Nor does He condone any type of radical activism that would avoid tax obligations, disobey or seek removal of government officials we don't agree with, or spend an inordinate amount of time campaigning for a so-called Christian slate
eleventh hour wrote: When the government said let them consume contraception en masse (1960), what conservative made a peep? When the government said let them divorce en masse (1970), what conservative made a peep? When the government said let them abort en masse (1973), what conservative made a peep? When the government said let them IVF en masse (1990s), what conservative made a peep? But when the government finally says let them gay-marry en masse (2012), what conservative isn't making a peep? Conservatives did nothing for 52 years while liberals changed the world. Now conservatives want to save Christian marriage at the 11th hour? It's too late for that.
I remember all these events when they happened and I remember hearing lots of "peeps", and much more than just "peeps" from conservatives at the time regarding all these issues--except IVF. IVF was actually lauded by many of my fellow protestants as a much more righteous alternative to surrogate motherhood, which was widely used by modern worldly people back then (late 70s, early 80s) as a viable alternative to childlessness.
Maybe you didn't hear the "peeps" because you lacked the ability to do so at the time those "peeps" were being made.
eleventh hour wrote: --- Conservatives did nothing for 52 years while liberals changed the world. Now conservatives want to save Christian marriage at the 11th hour? It's too late for that.
Kind of like the negative RC response to paying for contraceptives, in light of the obscenity of the affordable healthcare act which they supported.
John UK wrote: Christian men for centuries who have spoken out against SIN on our streets; and also spoken of the only remedy for SIN, namely, the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by which, and only which, men will have a change of heart in regard to SIN, and finding sorrow and repentance welling up in them for having offended a holy God, See to it.
Are there adiaphora anymore? Perhaps they perceive everything permissible (1 Cor 10:23) now.
eleventh hour wrote: ...what conservative made a peep?
You can peep as much as you like, you'll never change a world which consists of men who are totally depraved and incapable of doing good. Besides which, if you had done some homework you would have discovered that there have been good Christian men for centuries who have spoken out against SIN on our streets; and also spoken of the only remedy for SIN, namely, the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by which, and only which, men will have a change of heart in regard to SIN, and finding sorrow and repentance welling up in them for having offended a holy God, and having been quickened and enlightened by the Spirit of Almighty God, especially regarding their eternal destination outside of Christ, having SINNED against him all their days, in an ungodly manner, yet, notwithstanding their wickedness, a possible pardon and peace from the Lord, found only in Jesus Christ (directly) and none other, forgiveness and reconciliation through the Cross, appropriated directly by crying out to the Lord in faith and repentance, they find reconciliation with their Creator and walk with him lifelong, thanking HIM for such grace to such an undeserving sinner.
When the government said let them consume contraception en masse (1960), what conservative made a peep?
When the government said let them divorce en masse (1970), what conservative made a peep?
When the government said let them abort en masse (1973), what conservative made a peep?
When the government said let them IVF en masse (1990s), what conservative made a peep?
But when the government finally says let them gay-marry en masse (2012), what conservative isn't making a peep?
Conservatives did nothing for 52 years while liberals changed the world. Now conservatives want to save Christian marriage at the 11th hour? It's too late for that.
Jim Lincoln wrote: This is a good reason to have such materials like Bibles in contemporary language,such as the NKJV, or even the Amer. KJV.
No! Its a good reason to keep the King James Bible as written. Since these modern connotations are being used in an entirely different way. In the past traditional moral standards were not corrupted by governments and institutions as they are todays society. Also the church/Christianity had more respect within the community. Today these definition changes are being applied in such a way as to destroy morals and the Biblical precepts by people in authority such as bishops and politicians etc.
Modern versions and the roman catholic predisposition to ignore the Bible or rewrite it for the catholic followers is weakening the Bible position in society. The result being the Bible is no longer respected as the word of God and cults such as Liberalism take over in churches and in institutions of society.
This is a good reason to have such materials like Bibles in contemporary language,such as the NKJV, or even the Amer. KJV.
You may not want a language change, but unless it's a dead language, it invariably will.So I agree with this pastor about the corruption of some of the words in the English language--but there happened--and there's not much you can do about it.
"late 14c., "full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree;" also "wanton, lewd, lascivious" (late 12c. as a surname, Philippus de Gay), from O.Fr. gai "joyful, happy; pleasant, agreeably charming; forward, pert" (12c.; cf. O.Sp. gayo, Port. gaio, It. gajo, probably French loan-words). Ultimate origin disputed; perhaps from Frankish *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"), though not all etymologists accept this. Meaning "stately and beautiful; splendid and showily dressed" is from early 14c. The word gay by the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back at least to the 1630s, if not to Chaucer:" (Etymological Dic)
Rev. Colin Mercer | 11/19/2012
COMMENTS | 
by not having accurate adjectives to describe those behaviors.
You, me, my pastor, and John MacArthur would agree:
