Church Billboard Takes Aim at "I Kissed A Girl" Song

[Lewis]

Church Billboard Takes Aim at "I Kissed A Girl" Song
COLUMBUS, OH -- Mixed feelings. That's the best way to describe how people feel about a controversial church sign that was seen in Blacklick this past week.

For 24 hours, the message board outside Havens Corners Church, 6696 Havens Corner Rd., read, "I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell."

The message refers to the chart-topping song by pop artist Katy Perry "I Kissed A Girl."

Pastor David Allison said he didn't put up the sign to draw attention to the church.

"We didn't intend to get into all this, but it's become a bigger thing," Allison said.

He was just very concerned about the implications of the song for teenagers and what he called a music video so suggestive it borders on pornography.

"If anyone's seen the video and understands how lewd and suggestive the video is for this song, that is not something young people should go toward," Allison said.

He thought the message would be a loving way to remind teenagers that the Bible denounces homosexuality.

Taking a look at the other side of this story, some people can't believe the church displayed that message so publically.

A viewer sent us a picture of the sign with the subject title "Worst Church Sign Ever."

The sign was removed Thursday.

Pastor Allison said it was not due to outrage. He said he received volumes of support from throughout the state.

Instead, he said, it was confusing to many people who called in or e-mailed because they didn't know to what he was referring. They were unaware of the song.

Equality Ohio said their "jaw dropped" when they saw a picture of the sign.

"It was a little jaw-dropping. But it happens and we want people to know there are more than 300 welcoming and affirming churches across Ohio," said Kim Welter, of Equality Ohio.

They maintain while the church is free to air their opinion on a reader board, members of the gay, lesbian and transgender community will find more than 300 welcoming churches throughout Ohio.

Allison said they do welcome the GLBT community but believe they are engaged in sin.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/life/ente ... yid=118226

 

[Caroline H]

I was appalled when I first heard the song. I think it is dreadful and that Christians should not listen to such trash, although some on my campus who claim to be Christian do so. I agree with the church for trying to influence their youth to not listen to ungodly music, but they should have known what kind of reaction they would receive. In my opinion they shouldn't have worded the sign the way they did, it has probably done more harm than good.

 

[Blazin Bones]

The sign highlights one issue many people have with the church. Many who are lost are upset with the church because they go straight for the juggular with some things. Yes, the song is wrong and if they wanted to speak against it a sign is one good method. However, by saying that kissing a girl and liking it will send you to hell,the church has hit the best way to turn off a lost person who is already hurting from other chastizement. While the thought off Hell should scare people, Christians need to remember that fear of hell doesn't save a soul.

 

[Sangheili333]

I've never seen the video, but honestly, I think it's catchy

 

[handy]

I think the church loses a vital part of it's message by avoiding speaking of hell. Jesus didn't shy away from the subject, and neither should we.

What is the gospel anyway? That God loves us so much that He sent His Son to suffer and die for us, right? Why? To save us from our sins?

To save us from what? Our sins? What is it exactly about our sins that require us to be saved? What does this mean exactly.

To say "Jesus saves you from your sins" is a weak message. Very weak. So weak that we now, after a few decades of post-modern Christianity we have the image of churches that hold to God's standards of behavior being viewed as 'intolerant' and those who ignore God's standards as 'welcoming'. Humans like our sins, we are enslaved to them, and are comfortable with them. Sin is so strong in humans that even when we see them destroying us, we continue right on with them. So, when someone comes along and says, "Jesus saves you from your sins" the result is usually, "Thanks, but no thanks", or "If God doesn't love me just the way I am, (sins and all) then I don't think He is loving enough to deserve my devotion."

When the Bible teaches us that Jesus saves us from our sins, it does so within the context that He is saving us from the consequenses of our sins. And hell is the ultimate consequense of sin. Jesus preached that hell is a place to be feared and avoided at all costs. Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

"Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". Is Jesus speaking of God here? Does Jesus preach that we should fear God because He might judge us to hell? Yes, again in Luke 12:5, Jesus says, ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him." Jesus' preaching was filled with words of fear and words of judgment to hell. No one listening to Him could think, "Well, God's nice and all of that to love me, but I think I like my life's philosophy better, I'll stick with it."

We need to remember that people are enslaved to their sin. That enslavement usually takes the form of justifying sin, excusing it, all the while embracing it. How many times have you heard folks decide that they aren't going to church because they just aren't willing to give up certain sins.

The post-modern church's answer to this is to just simply embrace sin along with the person. "All are wecome!" is the phrase. But, Jesus didn't take that route. Rather, He always saw what sin was doing to us and where sin was ultimately going to put us, namely hell. Therefore, rather than decide, "Well, I love them enough to overlook that about them", He suffered and died in order to save us from hell.

Jesus saves.

From what?

From hell, and we should not and can not allow folks to forget that.

 

[Vic C.]

I've never seen the video, but honestly, I think it's catchy

That's part of the problem, it's "catchy". Ear candy, complete with lots of sugar. Now sugar is small quantities isn't that bad but excessive amounts lead to decay. :-?

Appalling was the very first that came to mind mind also. :o

 

[Blazin Bones]

I think the church loses a vital part of it's message by avoiding speaking of hell. Jesus didn't shy away from the subject, and neither should we.

What is the gospel anyway? That God loves us so much that He sent His Son to suffer and die for us, right? Why? To save us from our sins?

To save us from what? Our sins? What is it exactly about our sins that require us to be saved? What does this mean exactly.

To say "Jesus saves you from your sins" is a weak message. Very weak. So weak that we now, after a few decades of post-modern Christianity we have the image of churches that hold to God's standards of behavior being viewed as 'intolerant' and those who ignore God's standards as 'welcoming'. Humans like our sins, we are enslaved to them, and are comfortable with them. Sin is so strong in humans that even when we see them destroying us, we continue right on with them. So, when someone comes along and says, "Jesus saves you from your sins" the result is usually, "Thanks, but no thanks", or "If God doesn't love me just the way I am, (sins and all) then I don't think He is loving enough to deserve my devotion."

When the Bible teaches us that Jesus saves us from our sins, it does so within the context that He is saving us from the consequenses of our sins. And hell is the ultimate consequense of sin. Jesus preached that hell is a place to be feared and avoided at all costs. Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

"Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". Is Jesus speaking of God here? Does Jesus preach that we should fear God because He might judge us to hell? Yes, again in Luke 12:5, Jesus says, ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him." Jesus' preaching was filled with words of fear and words of judgment to hell. No one listening to Him could think, "Well, God's nice and all of that to love me, but I think I like my life's philosophy better, I'll stick with it."

We need to remember that people are enslaved to their sin. That enslavement usually takes the form of justifying sin, excusing it, all the while embracing it. How many times have you heard folks decide that they aren't going to church because they just aren't willing to give up certain sins.

The post-modern church's answer to this is to just simply embrace sin along with the person. "All are wecome!" is the phrase. But, Jesus didn't take that route. Rather, He always saw what sin was doing to us and where sin was ultimately going to put us, namely hell. Therefore, rather than decide, "Well, I love them enough to overlook that about them", He suffered and died in order to save us from hell.

Jesus saves.

From what?

From hell, and we should not and can not allow folks to forget that.

Handy, look at it this way. Suppose you were a young girl who was not rasied in church and is also struggling with her sexuality. One weekend she goes out with a group of her friends and they "experimented" a bit with kissing each other. Sure enough a kiss is a kiss and for a girl who needs affection, it could be much more than just a kiss. Now you drive back home and on a church sign you read, "I kissed a girl, and I liked it, and now I'm going to hell." In that short message, she has learned NOTHING of God's forgiveness and grace, but has found that her problems are bringing her to hell. Why would she want to learn anymore about Christianity if she is now being condemded by a people and a faith she knows nothing about?

Yes, hell needs to be made perfectly clear as real and existing, but there is a time for that. When Jesus taught, he never went straight to the fire and brimestone, but rather he started where evangelism needs to start, at Christ himself. That sign is not reaching the lost, it's condemning them, which is not our right.

 

[handy]

The problem I have with this kind of thinking Tim, is that is denies both the facts and truths that we, as God's body here on earth has been charged to share, and it also denies the Spirit's role in a person's life.

If the girl was confronted that her actions were not just 'experimentation' (and boy, what a lot of destruction that phrase has caused) but something evil enough to impact her for all of eternity, the Spirit conviction upon her would be strong enough for her to start seeking Christ. However, with the church rushing in to say, "Oh no, God loves you just the way you are, don't worry about it!!" we wind up watering down the gospel to the point of ineffectiveness.

Speaking of young girls who were not raised in church and dealing with sexuality (albeit not lesbianism), I was just such a girl when I was impacted by the gospel for the first time. However, the gospel I dealt with wasn't the modern church's "God loves you just the way you are" gospel, but rather the Gospel of John, read from 1:1 to 21:25 all in one night. Talk about an impact, and believe me words like "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and and they are burned" packs quite a wallop. The Spirit was able to use those words to convict and renew me. I did fear God that night. I was overwhelmed by His love because I was brought to understand just how much He sacrificed in order to save me from a very real fate.

It is just a lie of the enemy's to feel that we must tread lightly over the subject of hell. I don't say that we are not to share God's love, we are. But, it is an important part of sharing God's love to the world, to tell them just what they are facing if they don't repent. If we are not sharing the whole council of God, we aren't doing our job correctly. And, the world suffers for it.

Read Ezekiel 33:1-16. This is the passage regarding the watchman. It's a sobering read. And we mustn't make the mistake of thinking "Well, gee, that's old testament stuff." What the world needs now more than ever, as we see sin be 'tolerated' at a rate that is incredible (kind of 'days of Noah' levels) is straight talk from those of us who know the truth about hell, damnation and just what Christ did on that cross.

 

[Carol Lowery]

I don't want it to appear like I'm taking sides here just because I pretty much would have said the same thing as Dora has, so no need to repeat it. I must add that someone gave me a book titled Divine Revelations of Hell by Mary Baxter to read, and I'm here to tell you the fear of going to hell is what brought me to my Salvation through Jesus Christ......then it was the Love of Christ through HIS people that brought/carried/encouraged and beckoned me the rest of the way toward HIM.

I believe the sign was for those who had an ear to hear, and those who didn't need it, didn't have an ear for it or were offended.

Kudos HIM,
Carol

 

[Blazin Bones]

I want to start by pointing out that in both of my posts I said that it IS important to teach the lost what they will face in hell if they do not get to know Christ. As Christians we are responsible to teach the lost, who hopefully become converts, the entire consel of Scripture. I am NOT suggesting that we ignore hell and all that the Bible teaches about it.

I don't want to ignore your testimonies, ladies, but this generation is a different story. This generation, at least in the USA, is constantly bombarded by the idea that they are inadequate as they are. It's never good enough to be who you are anymore, you must be good looking, smart, quick witted, and so many other things. For the church to come right out and put on a sign that their behavior has condemned them to hell before even explaining to such people why, is exactly what the culture does to degrade young people. This is why fire and brimstone typically does not reach the lost so easily anymore. Again, the fear of hell may have led you to seek the solution 20 to 30 years ago, but now it just tells people that once again, they are not good enough to fit in.

To those who were depressed and broken, Jesus and later his disciples introduced to them first the forgiveness of sins in him. In Mark 2 we see Jesus, first and foremost before even healing the lame man brought by the 4 men, tell the man that his sins were forgiven. In John 4 when Jesus met the Samaritan woman, he did not tell her she was going to hell because she was living with a man who was not her husband, but rather he told her about her sins, and then told her of the remedy for those sins, the living fountain of Christ. In Acts 3, when Peter and John healed the lame man, they again did not tell the lost man of hell first, but of Jesus' power to forgive sins.

Yes, if these people had not responded to the call to salvation that was presented to them, then they should have been taught that to deny Christ's forgiveness of sins is to also keep the punishment of sin, death and hell. However, Christ's forgiveness came first.

For some who are lost, fear of hell may spur them to seek Christ and his forgiveness which saves. However, many others who are lost, especially in today's world full of ways to be inadequate, they must see God can forgive their sins as they are, and then if they do not respond, the warnings of hell need to be given.

 

[handy]

No worries on taking sides, Carol. Tim and I are on the same side, just discussing differing emphasis. :wink:

There is a generational thing here, Tim, my lad. Because I must admit, I don't see the generation of today as seeing themselves as inadequate or not good enough. Rather, I see this generation as deliberately throwing out all judgments as to what constitutes good and evil, and as having a strong sense of entitlement to do just as they please. The emphasis on self-esteem is so over-balanced that high self-esteem is now an end in of itself, rather than a by-product of being the person God created us to be, doing the works God created us to do, which is the only way to true self-esteem.

I know that it is very popular today to believe that this generation is very different from all the others that came before it. (Oh, and I want to clarify, when I’m speaking of “generation†I’m not talking folks of a certain age bracket, but rather the age we are now in, the era.) But, I don’t see this as being anything other than what Paul describes to Timothy:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

The Bible tells us that no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and takes care of it. With all the evidence today of drugs, anorexia and bulimia, all the talk of how inadequate today’s young people feel, one wonders how true this is. Is this one reference that Paul simply got wrong? I don’t think so. I think rather that feelings of inadequacy that you mention is only further proof that we are indeed “lovers of self†because the emphasis is still on self. Unrequited self-love, but unrequited only because it’s rooted in covetousness (one of the big 10 we don’t hear all that much about in this materialistic age). The thing is, whether someone is celebrating in their high self-esteem, or despondent because they don’t ‘measure up’, the problem is still self-absorption.

What talk of hell can do is jolt one out of self-absorption, something this generation has down pat. Should the subject be treated as a bit on a church sign? Perhaps not. However, it’s important to note that the ire that was generated by the sign wasn’t because it might push emotionally unstable types away from God, but rather because it dared suggest that there is something inherently sinful and hell worthy about lesbianism. The issue wasn’t how the church dealt with sin, but the very fact they found something sinful in the act of a girl kissing a girl. Going back to our hypothetical girl who might be ‘experimenting’ with homosexuality, it does her a very good favor to let her know up front that that road does indeed lead to hell. And, with the church’s current shyness about speaking or preaching of hell at all, that sign might be the only thing that she ever sees that equates girl on girl sexuality with hell.

 

[Vic C.]

This could have been settled real easy by rephrasing the words on the sign. It makes a black and white statement instead of it being a thought provoking sign.

It should have read:

""I kissed a girl and I liked it. Will this lead me to to Hell?"
What does God have to say? Come on in and ask Him yourself.""

This way the church doesn't look or sound so condemning, plus this statement makes one ponder over the questions.

8-)

 

[handy]

Good wording! :wink:

 

[Blazin Bones]

No worries on taking sides, Carol. Tim and I are on the same side, just discussing differing emphasis. :wink:

There is a generational thing here, Tim, my lad. Because I must admit, I don't see the generation of today as seeing themselves as inadequate or not good enough. Rather, I see this generation as deliberately throwing out all judgments as to what constitutes good and evil, and as having a strong sense of entitlement to do just as they please. The emphasis on self-esteem is so over-balanced that high self-esteem is now an end in of itself, rather than a by-product of being the person God created us to be, doing the works God created us to do, which is the only way to true self-esteem.

I know that it is very popular today to believe that this generation is very different from all the others that came before it. (Oh, and I want to clarify, when I’m speaking of “generation†I’m not talking folks of a certain age bracket, but rather the age we are now in, the era.) But, I don’t see this as being anything other than what Paul describes to Timothy:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

The Bible tells us that no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and takes care of it. With all the evidence today of drugs, anorexia and bulimia, all the talk of how inadequate today’s young people feel, one wonders how true this is. Is this one reference that Paul simply got wrong? I don’t think so. I think rather that feelings of inadequacy that you mention is only further proof that we are indeed “lovers of self†because the emphasis is still on self. Unrequited self-love, but unrequited only because it’s rooted in covetousness (one of the big 10 we don’t hear all that much about in this materialistic age). The thing is, whether someone is celebrating in their high self-esteem, or despondent because they don’t ‘measure up’, the problem is still self-absorption.

What talk of hell can do is jolt one out of self-absorption, something this generation has down pat. Should the subject be treated as a bit on a church sign? Perhaps not. However, it’s important to note that the ire that was generated by the sign wasn’t because it might push emotionally unstable types away from God, but rather because it dared suggest that there is something inherently sinful and hell worthy about lesbianism. The issue wasn’t how the church dealt with sin, but the very fact they found something sinful in the act of a girl kissing a girl. Going back to our hypothetical girl who might be ‘experimenting’ with homosexuality, it does her a very good favor to let her know up front that that road does indeed lead to hell. And, with the church’s current shyness about speaking or preaching of hell at all, that sign might be the only thing that she ever sees that equates girl on girl sexuality with hell.

I'll give that the days are growing more and more wicked. To not see that would just be purely blind. However, I know from my own personal ministry in which I talk with many peoplewho are younger than I, there is a feeling that they don't meet certain standards.

Yes, this generation is a self-focused generation, and I'm not going to say it's just a bunch of good people mis-understood, but there is one common path, not the only on mind you, that leads to selfishness and that's wanting to for once meet standards they can not achieve. One who steals may be driven by greed, but greed may have been spawned out of the idea that a person is entitled to certain things. If a person does not have those things, then their life itself may feel inadequate.This may not be the case all the time, and it is NOT a justification for sin, but it is one path in which a hopeless life brings people to all the things Paul talks about.

It is for this reason that we must teach of forgiveness first. I would contend this: Those who place hope in material things are less likely to seek God if he calls than those who already have no hope in anything. We know that it is often when we have nowhere else to turn that we turn to God. This may not always be the case, but it's out there.

Now, as for the reason people objected to the sign, I agree, the church needs to begin taking a solid stand against sin and begin to preach it's consequences again more often. However, just because the church took a stand against sin, does not mean they did it as best they could. One of my preaching professors told us that we as Christians need to be careful not to make the gospel more offensive than it already is to a sinful life. I agree with Vic that better wording was definetly needed.

 

[Caroline H]

To me, and the reason I don't like the sign is, it sounds as though the act of homosexuality will send someone to hell. Yes, sin is what separates us from God and the consequence of that is spending an eternity in hell, unless you accept Jesus. But no sin is more condemning than another, we are born destined for hell and nothing we do can further that curse. In my opinion, if they are going to say that homosexuality will send you to hell, they may as well make a sign that says "I stole something, and then I went to hell", or "I coveted, and then I went to hell"..."I hated my neighbour, and then I went to hell", because it reads as though other, "lesser" sins aren't as bad. It has a 'more righteous than thou' ring to it, and I fear that it furthers the hypocrite attitude among non-believers because it sounds as though the petty little sins of a Christian are nothing in comparison to 'your' homosexuality. God forbid we ever seem happy to tell someone that they are going to hell. It would be better to bring them into a loving church body to show them that, before they were born, they were condemned already, and then give them the message of salvation through Christ. We do have a problem with a lot of churches condoning sinful behaviour, and that has mislead many into thinking that as long as they "love" God they can do what they want. But I don't think that the approach that Havens Corners Church does any better, because it automatically turns people off. I like Vic's wording a lot better.

 

[handy]

While I agree wholeheartedly that Vic's wording was better (hey vic, if you ever need to change careers, you have a talent for church sign writing) I think the Pastor's point was to counter the growing message that is voiced by a lot of churches that homosexuality isn't sinful. Remember in the article it was quoted that "members of the gay, lesbian and transgender community will find more than 300 welcoming churches throughout Ohio". I don't believe that stealing, hating or coveting is being actively, insistently promoted as not sinful behavior, but rather normal and "the way God made me." This is the message the Pastor was trying to counter.

Two thoughts:

I'm probably being more stubbron on this issue because I'm currently attending the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and they are currently struggling with the issue as to whether or not to ordain homosexuals as pastors. Homosexual activists are pushing and pushing hard to normalize homosexuality within the church.

Also,

Today, as we were driving home, my kids were listening to my daughter's portable radio, the type with earphones. They were singing along with the songs on the radio and sure enough, all of a sudden when Steve and I were sitting quietly, I heard both of them singing the words, "I kissed a girl and I liked it". My kids are 11 and 8, and we were forced to have a talk with them as to why they couldn't listen to that radio station, the same radio station that plays Hannah Montanna and Jonas Brothers music on it, anymore. Anyone out there care to have a talk with an 11 year old and an 8 year old on overtly homosexually suggestive music and why they can't listen to it?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Ouch, now that isn't a fun conversation at all. I'll be honest Dora, and this is from a 23 year old who is eager to be a dad one day, I have mixed feelings about such a talk. I would be sad because they are just living in the culture they were born into and they are hearing sinful things as acceptable. However, and please don't think me too pious or being critical of you, but I am so eager to teach my Children why God's things are better than the worlds. It may be that I've finished my Christianity degree and I'm eager to use it in my future home as much as in our lost world.

I see your point that the article does carry the air that homosexuality will be tolerated in some churches, but condemning one action ignores so many other things which are even more rampant in our faith. I don't know if I'm more concerned about the acceptance of the church with regards to homosexuality or the acceptance of pastors who quietly like watching girls kiss girls too.

 

[Vic C.]

Maybe we have our sights on the wrong target. Maybe parents should be aiming at the local radio stations. :smt070

 

[Carol Lowery]

Well said Vic..........you're absolutely right....it is more appealing/beckoning. After thought from my post...you're correct.

Kudos HIM,
Carol <><

 

[Alabaster]

The song is sick, and the church billboard could have been worded better, but I am happy it made a stand. The minds of our youth are seared with filth, so worry about that more than how a church words its public messages. Forfend someone would be OFFENDED! Priorities, people. Sometimes we feel that there's a fire to be doused--quickly. We've got young kids' minds being polluted and assaulted right in front of us!!!