are they really on?
Imagine a Christian church which wasn’t, well Christian. Not necessarily because of behavior, but because they just didn’t believe in Jesus, the founder and chief cornerstone of the Christian church. But they still like using his name and personality on their organization.
That’s exactly what the Metropolitan Community Churches allows its member churches to do if they don’t feel comfortable acknowledging Christ as Lord…or savior.
This sharp lunge into further apostasy (if that is even possible) caused a division in the predominately homosexual denomination resulting in the formation of yet another gay christian church, the International Christian Community Church (ICCC). The ICCC is maintains standard gay christian doctrine, but distinguishes itself from the MCC by stating they doaccept Jesus.
According to Rev. Jay Neely, the ICCC founder, a former district coordinator for the MCC, “In some of the more progressive churches, they were allowed to remove the profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and to me, that’s not church.”
So, the MCC views “progression” as optional denial of Christ? Not a particularly shocking thing considering (1) MCC’s founder is an unrepentant adulterer, (2) its national “minister of justice” commanded gay christians not to discuss the Bible with “conservatives”, (3) one of it ministers wrote a book imagining Jesus as a homosexual with multiple sexual experiences (4) its current president says its okay to replace sound biblical interpretation with one’s own imagination and (5) a member church in Indianapolis purchased a ventriloquist model of Jesus for $55,000.
MCC’s egregious facade of Christianity is reminiscient of the other thief on the cross. He hung next to the Savior, looked him in the eye and cursed him.
Considered the crown jewel of the gay christian movement, the MCC (see profile here) actually does not value Jesus at all. Its core values reflect social/secular activism much more than Christian evangelism. Jesus (many versions available) seems only to be utilized when it comes to defense of the “red letter love” principle.