Wayne Cordeiro, Pastor, New Hope Christian Fellowship

**Anti-Civil Unions rally footage can be found here:http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/14349/40/**Article Wayne references can be found at: http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e24a123e-a183-43f1-895f-8ee017c581a4February 23 @ 1611hrsDear Logan:Thank you for your email and question. I also read your article. In my honest opinion, I would encourage you not to send it as it misinterpreted the gathering completely. The conclusions you came to are premature at best, so although I so appreciate your heart, and you really have a gift to write well, I would still encourage you to rethink your position. ( I believe Father Damien would too). He worked with those who didn't choose to be lepers and wanted desperately to be cured from their leprosy. And if they could be cured, they'd do it in a heart beat!Those involved in the Gay lifestyle who are pushing for this bill have chosen this way of life and do not want to be cured. They want to be endorsed. The parallel with Father Damien and leprosy does not quite fit, and I would be confident to say that he would be aghast to know that his life was used to describe the Church as insensitive to hurting people.The gathering was to ask the Senate and House members to allow us to rethink the wording so we could help this group of people without alienating the majority of people who are heterosexual and have families. Gays and lesbians have already been given full rights and benefits to in the Reciprocal Benefits Act which gives partners the benefits you are talking about: tax incentives, hospital visitation rights, life and health insurance benefits. It has already been done. This bill, HB444, is different. It is asking the state to solemnize their union and to make it equal to a marriage without calling it "marriage." If that is the case, then everything a married couple is allowed to do, the state wants to solemnize it. Then if a school teaches about married people, they now MUST teach that there is another union called Civil Unions among Homosexuals and Lesbians, and that this is a normative family grouping as equal to any other family.You are correct that Christians must learn to reach Gays better. We have not done a good job at it in the past, but your letter fractures the unity of Christians by coming against your own family to demean them. If indeed you are an evangelical Christian, then you must "first do good to those of the household of faith" as we find in Galatians 6:10. In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul the apostle had to correct division within the Body of Christ first before we could correct divisions among others. "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it...."I do not want your position or letter to be something the enemy uses to cause further division.The gathering was under the seal of our motto: The life of the land is perpetuated in Righteousness. We must stand for the righteousness of God. Of course, it includes reaching out to Gays and Lesbians with the Gospel of Christ, but we cannot reach them if we have a Gospel that no longer distinguishes between right and wrong ... or if we have a body of so called "believers" who strike at one another.And by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah's sin did indeed include the sin of homosexuality (Genesis 19:5), and God said that He would not destroy the land if there were a group of righteous who haven't yet succumbed or conceded to the worldly morals which had invaded the cities. Even Lot himself was not exonerated, but God was willing to have mercy on him. And when Abraham asked God, He was willing to relent if there were righteous remaining in the land who could still distinguish right from wrong.Your letter will add to the confliction and I would encourage you to rethink your position so as to distinguish right from wrong. No, I am not asking anyone to be judgmental. Because a person can see the difference does not make him a bigot or nor does it mean discrimination.Let me ask you to take more time to ask God for His insight. You are a great writer. Use that gift wisely for Christ and His best. Let's see if we can use our gifts to reach those caught in this lifestyle with the Gospel rather than using it to say of our own family, "apparently we are so blind..." and turning against the very ones who may carry the Gospel of salvation to these who need it so desperately.But even doctors cannot bring healing to those who they don't diagnose as needing any cure.In His Grace,Wayne CordeiroIn order to be able to answer all of the correspondence Pastor Wayne Cordeiro receives, his responses will come from my e-mail address. He has personally read your email and has drafted a response, and I assist in expediting a reply back to you.This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Do not copy or forward to other recipients without sole permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies of this message or contact the sender by reply email or telephone (808) 842-4242 ext. 113.In His Service and yours,Mary Waialeale, Assistant to Wayne CordeiroFebruary 23 @ 1748hrs(I am not sure to whom i am responding, pastor Wayne or Mary, but either way, i felt compelled to respond)Thank you for your prompt response. Unfortunately, i cannot concede to much of what is contained herein. Beside the fundamental point that seems to have been missed, i think there are a few Biblical issues at heart as well, as you mention. being that i am nothing more than laity, i will trust you on those points which i do not find resolution for within our scriptures, but i must again state my sincere disagreement with both your broader stance as well as certain points you make.i actually hate it when this is done, going through and replying to portions of a correspondence, but i am under the gun studying for a midterm next week. please accept my apology for relying on such minimalistic ways, but i hope you understand why i am not able to draft a more comprehensive response. however, i would welcome any chance to speak in person on this matter, as i feel this issue is of utmost relevance and importance to both the Church today and our broader society. i have also attached my response to the commentary posted this morning in the honolulu advertiser (not really getting sent anywhere, just for friends i am in conversation with about this issue). i hope to see you at the capitol tomorrow morning.reverently,- logan laituricourageouscoward.blogspot.com(808) 227-6565On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mary Waialeale wrote:Dear Logan:Thank you for your email and question. I also read your article. In my honest opinion, I would encourage you not to send it as it misinterpreted the gathering completely. The conclusions you came to are premature at best, so although I so appreciate your heart, and you really have a gift to write well, I would still encourage you to rethink your position. ( I believe Father Damien would too). He worked with those who didn't choose to be lepers and wanted desperately to be cured from their leprosy. And if they could be cured, they'd do it in a heart beat!- i object to your inference of Father Damien, in that by the time he arrived in hawaii (after a period of deliberation considering whether to live amongst those the Bible clearly deemed "unclean"), there yet was no cure for hansens (the cause for the disease was discoverd the same year [1873] in norway, but wasnt even announced until 1880). honolulu's patron saint surely had an idea that what he was doing was in opposition to the status quo, both socially and within the Church.Those involved in the Gay lifestyle who are pushing for this bill have chosen this way of life and do not want to be cured. They want to be endorsed. The parallel with Father Damien and leprosy does not quite fit, and I would be confident to say that he would be aghast to know that his life was used to describe the Church as insensitive to hurting people.- in a sense, i am "involved in the gay lifestyle" as well, being that i am actively seeking to provide justice to this community of people. please also see my attachment regarding what the stated goal is and where i stand on "gay marriage," and please consider refraining from typifying such people as having chosen the way they are. there is no reliable science behind it, and it is all to often regarded as condescending. as a people of love and sympathy, i do not find justification to use language that may demean or belittle other image-bearers. The gathering was to ask the Senate and House members to allow us to rethink the wording so we could help this group of people without alienating the majority of people who are heterosexual and have families. Gays and lesbians have already been given full rights and benefits to in the Reciprocal Benefits Act which gives partners the benefits you are talking about: tax incentives, hospital visitation rights, life and health insurance benefits. It has already been done. This bill, HB444, is different. It is asking the state to solemnize their union and to make it equal to a marriage without calling it "marriage." If that is the case, then everything a married couple is allowed to do, the state wants to solemnize it. Then if a school teaches about married people, they now MUST teach that there is another union called Civil Unions among Homosexuals and Lesbians, and that this is a normative family grouping as equal to any other family.- i did not know it was to reconsider wording. i personally didnt find anything in the bill that i would change, but i respect the difference of opinion and apologize for assuming what i did. secondly, the RB act does not provide "full rights and benefits," but limited provisions. HB444 does provide full recognition, that is what was mentioned in the commentary you co-signed on this morning. additionally, i cannot remember in HB444 where it mandates civil union curricula ("must teach"). finally, normative and normal are subjective terms that cause more damage to children than anything else. i.e.: a kid is shorter than "normal," his esteem is affected. sociologists have been saying for years that we must get away from normal and abnormal and instead move toward functional and dysfunctional. i have found no reasonable evidence that homosexual couples provide any less of a functional setting for children.You are correct that Christians must learn to reach Gays better. We have not done a good job at it in the past, but your letter fractures the unity of Christians by coming against your own family to demean them. If indeed you are an evangelical Christian, then you must "first do good to those of the household of faith" as we find in Galatians 6:10. In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul the apostle had to correct division within the Body of Christ first before we could correct divisions among others. "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it...." I do not want your position or letter to be something the enemy uses to cause further division.- i think one thing that yet puzzles me is wether we are doing a good job of reaching "gays" now. that was my single most upsetting aspect of yesterdays rally. i do not understand the fruits of the spirit that are practiced by identifying ourselves by something we oppose. the honking, sign-waving, and song-singing was all unneccessary if our primary goal was to appeal to the government to change the wording. however, i do agree that we must first come to our own family. however, that is a two way street. if the church would like to instill its morals in society, we sure as heck better be the model citizens. however, larger america sees christians as intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, uninformed, etc. if we turn a deaf ear to these legitimate criticisms, are we not validating them? if we want to storm into the state's house and turn tables, our own living room better be spick and span, right? finally, the danger in what is said is that it may come off as suppressing the church's self-criticism. i will not pursue submitting the article as is (or even at all, im not sure), BUT if you and i have heard one another and either of us does not in some way allow the other to inform or persuade us, then we prophetically fulfill those earlier mentioned stereotypes of the modern church. the best way to avoid division (or repair it) is never to placate or gloss over the message God is giving us through each other.The gathering was under the seal of our motto: The life of the land is perpetuated in Righteousness. We must stand for the righteousness of God. Of course, it includes reaching out to Gays and Lesbians with the Gospel of Christ, but we cannot reach them if we have a Gospel that no longer distinguishes between right and wrong ... or if we have a body of so called "believers" who strike at one another.- i hope i am not understood as striking at you or any person or group of persons. if there is some way i may alleviate that concern, please let me know. sometimes in my writing i come off very blunt, but it's only because i suck at typing and i try to get out things succinctly and save time. but i think that of all bodies, the church should be receptive to criticism, especially from within its own ranks, being that we are called to be humble and eager to repent. if we disallow striking at one another only to strike at someone else, i think that is a greater danger.And by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah's sin did indeed include the sin of homosexuality (Genesis 19:5), and God said that He would not destroy the land if there were a group of righteous who haven't yet succumbed or conceded to the worldly morals which had invaded the cities. Even Lot himself was not exonerated, but God was willing to have mercy on him. And when Abraham asked God, He was willing to relent if there were righteous remaining in the land who could still distinguish right from wrong.- 19:5 does not state the cause of the city's fall, only a condition present at its destruction. i think ezekiel speaks more directly about what the city was doing wrong, which was arrogance, obesity, unconcern, and a lack of help for the needy. im not seeing any reference to a failure to see right from wrong, only the fact that Abraham was challenging the idea that God would treat the wicked the same as the righteous. i dont know if i am just looking in the wrong area, or if we have different translations (i usually prefer the NIV).Your letter will add to the confliction and I would encourage you to rethink your position so as to distinguish right from wrong. No, I am not asking anyone to be judgmental. Because a person can see the difference does not make him a bigot or nor does it mean discrimination.- i will certainly continue to ponder my position. as you will see by my note, it isnt as grey as i may have come off earlier. and i agree with your reasoning that seeing difference does not necessarily make a bigot, only irrationality and prejudice may do that. that is not an accusation, merely an observation. bigotry exist in the world, and we must constantly be on watch to guard against becoming that which we dislike the most. Let me ask you to take more time to ask God for His insight. You are a great writer. Use that gift wisely for Christ and His best. Let's see if we can use our gifts to reach those caught in this lifestyle with the Gospel rather than using it to say of our own family, "apparently we are so blind..." and turning against the very ones who may carry the Gospel of salvation to these who need it so desperately. - i thank you for the compliment and will indeed try to use my gifts for the Kingdom. but again, i think we must not dismiss healthy self-criticism too quickly. God gave us a beautiful, rational mind to sort out our salvation with fear and trembling, and without humility, Christ never would have given Himself to the cross. But even doctors cannot bring healing to those who they don't diagnose as needing any cure.- may God remind us every day that we too are the patients, not the doctors.February 26 @ 1709hrsPastor Wayne and/or Mary Waialeale;I must thank you profusely for the opportunity to sharpen and be sharpened by and through our brief discussion a few days ago. It was and remains a rewarding discourse that I hope will not be the last. I count myself lucky to have been able to carry on a long tradition within the Church of debating and dialoging about such relevant topics. I count discussions such as these on par with those of Origen, Tertullian, Iraneus, Apollo and other Church fathers.However, I find it is my conscientious duty to let you know that I have found I am not able to abide by my implied promise that I would not publicly rebut your position. While I recognize that some may count this as creating a division, I hold that such a diversity of opinion already exists which must not be removed from the public dialogue. I feel that to shield such diversity from public scrutiny would be to diminish the waters of the theological “gene pool.” I firmly believe in the power of the intellect of the individual, that God gifted each man and woman with a beautifully inquisitive mind. Even if offered differing perspectives, I trust that we can and will be led by God to his truth.Secondly, I fear the Church’s witness has been tarnished by years of neglect by the popular church. The world already dismisses evangelicals as intolerant and hypocritical, and they too need to understand the plethora of thought even within the Church. This was starkly apparent on Tuesday, each time homosexuals were referred to as “the gays,” or were cast into the worst stereotypes imaginable by people claiming to “love” them all the while. What weight does this “love” have when set beside such prejudice?It is my prayer that the church may be restored to its full potential. But as long as we maintain a status quo over 2,000 years old, I am afraid we will be left behind as God develops and nurtures the rest of the world to its own fullness. God help you and I to help the church.- logan laituriMarch 2 @ 2338hrs**In reference to Sunday morning message (March 1, 2009) viewable here:http://www.enewhope.org/video/index.php?video=652Pastor Wayne (or Mary, or both);I had the opportunity to attend the service last Sunday at Farrington, and I was surprised to hear the message delivered. At first glance, I thought some of it was directed at me, or perhaps some of the points I had made in our brief discussion. However, I am sure others have been in conversation with you about this very important issue, and I hope not every person who has contacted you has been in lock-step about opposing equal rights to members of our society. I must thank you for not using derogatory language in your sermon, as I have heard other church leaders use, such as “the gays.” Finally, I did not hear today any rebuttal of the arguments I posed to you in my earlier email, so I must assume they remain unchallenged.As a person of influence, a ‘servant,’ a diakonos of the church, you hold (as I am sure you are aware) a greater responsibility than most to exude traits and qualities that your congregants may emulate. However, I could not help but notice the theme of your sermon this morning being inconsistent with your earlier insistence of avoiding divisiveness. Glaring at us from behind you on the set was the declaration “No Neutrality.” You went on to invoke Hitler and warn us of end-times being near (a popular theme used for the last 2,000 years).[On that note, I must add that while Holland fell to Nazism in no small part due to its concessions, you may be interested in taking a look at Denmark. They similarly held to neutrality for a time, in the form of “negotiations under protest,” but did not concede in the long run. The Danes protected all but a hundred Danish Jews and nonviolently resisted the Germans through workers strikes and massive, coordinated civil disobedience. Quite a feat for a neutral country!]I’m confused because it seems that we are saying one thing between one another and something else before the larger community, but I’m not sure if there is something I am missing.I agree that we must be one as the Church (as you will read from my opinion piece attached). However, far be it from us to enjoy exclusivity and esteem in the face of such inequality! To the best of my knowledge, no person in opposition to HB444 has even attempted to argue that the real issue at heart is in fact equality (though tragically, we grasp at ways to rationalize our established status quo even while recognizing its partiality). The difference between your position and mine is praxis: what do we DO with said inequality? The position you hold seems to insist that we maintain the status quo; that we close our fists even tighter around the 30 pieces of silver we receive for our own state-sanctioned unions. The position I propose is that we stand ready to either forfeit those benefits we are given as heterosexual Christian couples, or be willing to grant them equally to other committed, monogamous couples. After all, the Church is called to be the least and the last in society. We fascinate people into our way of life, not shame them into it. Jesus would surely weep at our attempts to keep his guests from the Final Feast. Or maybe He will be at the back door, ushering them in (like in Psalm 23:5) so that they may testify against us… that would be just irony, wouldn’t it?Two last things I wonder about. First of all, why has the church been so sex-centric in years past? We fret over genitals and intercourse and the rest just passes over our heads. I’d be willing to bet there is a force the enemy is using that poses an exponentially greater (and much more tangible) risk to our society, and that is greed. I mean, look at the Wall Street abomination. Where was the Church? Where was New Hope in decrying such widespread and unrepentant lust for money? Were we out in the public denouncing such sacrilege? I didn't see any newspaper commentaries, at least... The church has been sex-centric and I think the enemy has had a hearty laugh in the face of our obsessive fetishes to fill pews.Second, in your sermon Sunday, you helped us see that the world quakes while the Church is firmly rooted in Christ. I liked the illustration, but I was forced to wonder about the broader the message; are we saying that homosexuals may not simultaneously be gay and saved? Are we dismissing our own sinful nature that readily? Have we judged our own blood redder than theirs, becoming the Pharisee by thanking God for not being like one of “them?” (Luke 18) It is imperative that the church maintains its moral integrity before the world, but when we assign value to or declare judgments upon people, it only reveals our pitiable fig leaves (prophetically exposing our own fallen-ness). Have you ever wondered why the selection of the tree is important in Genesis 3? We could have eaten of the tree of eternal life, but Satan instead tempts us to ingest a fruit that carries with it the implication that we may judge between good and evil, a task previously reserved for the Divine… Profound.[Sidenote: I agree that we are to discern between good and bad, but that should lead us primarily to our own internal transformation. When we choose to assign value (which assumes a hierarchy that counteracts Christ's insistence that we be like children) and begin to enforce it, we enter the role of arbiter, which the Bible makes clear is reserved exclusively for God.]The most moving part of my day came after I left New Hope to attend my more regular church meeting at Crossroads, over on University Ave. We have three homosexual members we embrace and were able to take communion with that day. I wept like I haven’t for a long time when our pastor took it upon himself to turn to them, in the midst of a sermon on the interesting company our God keeps (like the dehumanized image-bearers degraded as “niggers,” “nips,” or “fags”), and apologize to them for the language and actions of the popular church the previous Sunday. The pastor wept. They wept with me, and I think Jesus wept with us.I have been writing you and others, rallying alongside the homosexual community, and typing my laptop keys into nubs because I cannot stand to see the church act the way she has been. Our very reputation is at stake and no single Christian “leader” in the media has had the intestinal fortitude to stand on, by, and for Christ in his most distressing disguises. How long, as Dr. King asked, will prejudice blind the visions of men? Jesus again weeps over His people, wondering if they will ever recognize the time of the Father’s coming, or if they will be busy looking for Him in the halls of the legislature or on the steps of the capitol. May God forgive the church’s arrogance and unconcern for the needy. May He indeed heed the outcry of the oppressed within our state. Forgive the church, for she knows not what she does.worriedly,- logan laituriMarch 16 @ 1431hrsDear Logan:Thank you for your phone call requesting an appointment with Wayne Cordeiro. I am sorry but Pastor Wayne will not be able to meet with you to discuss the matter further. We have a ministry in New Hope called Souljourners for Christ, and we have many that were once transgender, lesbian, and homosexual, and now with the power of God, they are doing great. Would you be willing to speak to the leader, Napela? If so, please feel free to give her a call. Napela’s cellular # is: xxx-xxxx, and you may call her at any time.Sincerely,Mary WaialealeMarch 16 @1926hrshi mary,thanks for the offer to meet with Napela, i will definitely try calling later this week. i appreciate your readiness to refer me to the ministry.however, as for pastor wayne not being able to meet with me, that is both insulting and unacceptable (especially considering that my own hard earned cash has gone to support new hope and this is how i am rewarded). for him to respond as he did in his email (encouraging one to remain silent in order to refrain from divisiveness), then to state unequivocally, before thousands of brothers and sisters in Christ, that there is "no neutrality" flies in the face of every fruit of the spirit (though it does fulfill at least 3 fruits of a sinful nature).dont get me wrong, i sympathize with his position; such a public persona making a public stance (heck, emanating out of public property at farrington...) is nearly impossible to metanoia from a stance once made so, well, publicly. this is not a viable excuse though. he has a responsibility not only to his flock but to the Church he is called to be accountable to. i do not intend to change his mind; however, i believe that neither his stance on civil unions, nor the activities he has been promoting within new hope, are based upon Biblically literate foundations. what i do hope to do is to appeal, as one brother to another, to the deeper truths contained within the Bible, as such a superficial reading of leviticus (18:22), jude (1:7), etc. is to make a graven image of God by celebrating the letters (and ink and paper) of His word even while defiling its very spirit. we narrow the scope and breadth of the bible and restrict God's salvific power anytime we take a selectively literal interpretation of His word.i have given pastor wayne ample time and opportunity to consider the issue with humility and a proper Christian perspective and respond with reverence for the issue at hand to another Christian in "privileged" confidence. in accordance with Matthew 18, if he refuses to meet with me, a Christian who is approaching him out of respect and concern for the Church and her reputation, i will not be able to honor our "confidential" conversation. this is an important issue for Hawaii, but it has repercussions for the entire universal body of Christ. pastor wayne's actions do nothing to advance the da'ath (hebrew: knowledge, understanding) or integrity of the Church, and for that i cannot stand, nor will i betray the Church by my silence.before the end of this week, i will be writing another article for sojourners, an organization i feel has made great inroads in the pursuit of justice and Biblical truth. it is my hope we will have been able to schedule a meeting so that pastor wayne may substantiate his claims made in his previous email and in church the following sunday, or at least so that he may apologize appropriately for such a morally contradictory act as to insist i quiet myself to benefit the Church even as he polarizes the issue within his own flock. in the absence of such an opportunity, i will only be able to reflect upon my own admittedly poor regard for his handling of this issue.regrettably,- logan laituriMarch 17 @1338hrsHi Logan:I received your email. Thank you for your reply.I prayed for you in my daily prayers and also asked God to bless you.In His Praises,Mary@1355hrsim not sure i understand whether this is a response on behalf of pastor wayne or a personal correspondence unrelated to our broader dialogue...if there is no hope to meet with him (sorry, i just realized the pun, uninteneded though), thats fine. i just need to be clear, cuz i sometimes miss subtlety every now and then. thank you for the response regardless, and thank you for the prayers, but i fear they may prove moot if your supervisor is not able or willing to approach any amount of respectful criticism in response to his very public claims, which have a direct bearing on the character of the Church. resolution of this matter is out of my hands; prayer for wayne, that he might find the strength to face the reality that his position might not withstand the scrutiny of scripture and Biblical history.in Him,- logan laituri@1423hrsHi Logan:Thank you for graciously asking for clarification. I too sometimes miss subtlety and need it in black and white. My response was on behalf of me. My prayers for you are sincere. I’m sorry but Wayne will not be able to meet.Loving Jesus with you, Mary@1447hrsJesus surely weeps at such disregard for his own Body. may God help wayne to be humble, to repent of his moral cowardice, and to sh'ma (hebrew to listen and obey) to the Spirit he has so fervently repressed.- logan laituriMarch 27 @ 1900hrshi mary,i would not have felt right had i not shared with you a product of our earlier discussions. somehow, it would have felt as though i was hiding behind my pen (or my laptop), so it is with that heart that i share with you the articles linked below. reflecting on our earlier exchange, i am not happy with my own behavior, which just as effectively shut down any real possibility for discourse as wayne's/your inability to discuss the matter further. i hope you are able to forgive my own abrasive and unapologetic language. i also hope the Church in Hawaii may in the future come together to more reverently discern how to more practically spread the good news to the homosexual community, which i believe will be must be rooted in relationship. please feel free to pass this email to pastor wayne as well.here are links to my latest writings; (just FYI, the editors provided the titles, they are not my choosing)http://blog.sojo.net/2009/03/27/when-calls-to-unity-sow-division-in-the-civil-union-debate/http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1538f16b-2af7-48b3-b40d-6a6f35d840bfpeace be with you,- logan laituricourageouscoward.blogspot.com(808) 227-6565March 29 @ 0600hrsHi Logan:Thank you for sharing your heart with me. All is forgiven and buried at the Foot of the Cross. Please forgive me too. Hope you have a wonderful Easter. God’s best to you!In Him, Mary