If your church has to warn everybody about Michael and Lisa Gungor from the pulpit this Sunday morning, it might be a good indicator that your church leadership needs your prayers.


Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 11:57 am

Why do you say that?

    Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 4:36 pm

    Are you asking me to clarify the statement, or just looking for more banter like you do on Facbook?

      Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 6:13 pm

      I didn’t look for banter…it was brought to my doorstep. A little of both, I suppose.

        Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 6:33 pm

        Semantics and theological interpretation of literal, poetic and/or allegorical Biblical texts aside (which, interestingly, Gungor’s position closely echoes that of Wesley, Calvin, Aquinas and Augustine on the theory of Accommodation), if any leader thinks the Gungors are the thing they should be spending precious seconds warning their churches about while ignoring by displacement the severity of the world’s present condition, they are deeply undervaluing the position they hold. Such behavior is proof, once again, that much of the Body in America is tragically thin-skinned and only needs a little Harry Potter or DaVinci Code to distract us.

        Further, if agreement is unity, we’re screwed.

          Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 7:14 pm

          While I agree it doesn’t need to be discussed from the pulpit, I think this issue goes beyond the church being “thin-skinned”. Gungor himself has accepted science as fact in these matters, he’s used his public position to tell everyone that will listen and thereby possibly caused/may cause some to stumble. Ultimately that’s what’s bothersome to me.

          I’d like to direct you to the I’m with You part 2 blog comments section. Dan Dailey has posted the first comment in which, I feel, he makes some fantastic points.

          In reference to the parting shot, “How can two walk together lest they be agreed”, Amos 3:3.

          Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 9:05 pm

          Can science ever inform our understanding of scripture?

          As to your comment on Amos, I would suggest a brief study of both context and the Hebrew. It literally means, “How can anyone take a walk unless they agree to an appointment to do so?” or simpler “Do two walk together without having met?” That, combined with the animal analogies, are direct calls for Israel to seek God’s face or risk a catastrophic encounter with God as a stranger.

          If I were to use your interpretation, then my marriage should have ended long ago. As should all my personal, staff and secular relationships.

          Come on, Michael. You can do better than that. What’s the true unifying value?

          Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 10:02 pm

          Science can inform, but not obliterate scripture. Gungor says the flood didn’t happen. If so, what other lies are in the bible? I’m beyond surprised you don’t see a problem with this idea. You didn’t really speak to the issue at hand in your response though. You keyed in on semantics.

          I know the Amos context. The statement remains true just as are all the other questions posed in the chapter. And various translations bear it out differently, but the supposition is the same. Your wife and you made an agreement to walk out your lives together before the Lord. Daily differences notwithstanding.

          You’ve made this out to be that Mr. Gungor has chosen to wear a blue shirt on a day that was designated as Hawaiian shirt day. This is a significant biblical truth that he has dismissed in favor of science. It’s not a small thing.

          When do you believe we should say something about someones error? Do we keep silent while they mislead people? Do you not see it as error?

          I doubt I’ll respond to any further posts. My needlepoint awaits.

          Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 10:17 pm

          Never answered my last question in your needlework. ‘Twas the most important. Have a great night.

          Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 10:26 pm

          Believing in the work done on the cross of Christ is the unifying value. However, the periphery matters too!

          Love you, brother

          Michael Hensley · 10 Aug ’14 at 7:17 pm

          And, not for nothing…should I feel offended by your comment? Is that my M.O?

          “just looking for more banter like you do on Facbook?”

          Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 8:21 pm

          I think you need a hobby.

Erica D Lehman · 10 Aug ’14 at 2:30 pm

I did a search and some think they drifted from the Bible. Is this a reference to that? I heard a song of theirs “Beautiful Things” on K-Love. I love Christian music. Btw,the picture’s my favorite NASCAR driver’s car. He listens to K-Love, too, as he once said when he was a guest on there.

    Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 4:35 pm

    Yes, that’s the reference, and that’s their song. They write some *beautiful* music. 😉

      Erica D Lehman · 10 Aug ’14 at 4:49 pm

      They think the beliefs Gungor mentions are mystical or something, it looks like.

        Christopher Hopper · 10 Aug ’14 at 5:10 pm

        You can find Michael (Gungor)’s own words here: http://gungormusic.com/category/blog/

        And in the post (Part I) just before it.

          Erica D Lehman · 10 Aug ’14 at 6:03 pm

          I wonder if K-Love would pull Gungor or at least not add more of their songs. A church backed out of a gig. Btw, I sign in with Twitter, sometimes, to Disquis. Other times I use Google+.

Ryan Paige Howard · 11 Aug ’14 at 5:09 am

I do understand your point you want to make . . . but I would have liked a little longer post on it from you. 😉 I actually wouldn’t have heard of the Gungor’s opinion if you didn’t post this. My church didn’t talk about it; neither have any of my Christian friends. So, I guess my leadership is good! 😀

I like their song “Beautiful Things”. They are indeed talented, yet . . . I’m not sure if I can completely agree with them on their views, but they have some good points and I wouldn’t call them bad. They don’t deny Christ, from what I read. I do not agree with “New Age Christianity” but I wouldn’t call the Gungor’s that.

Science (real science) and God do truly go hand in hand. So many of us Christian’s see science as being evil and that’s sad. Genesis can be a tough book to explain and understand. It’s one I personally have a hard time with.

There are indeed other things we need to be talking about . . . like praying and being aware of our persecuted brother’s and sister’s. There is a horrible genocide before our very eyes and too many of us have our heads buried WAY in the sand. Also, West Africa that is being hit hard with an ugly disease, which has been going on since March. And let’s honestly share the Good News . . . the world desperately needs it.

I will pray for the Gungor’s, because we all need prayer. I will also pray for you. I hope you and your beautiful family are doing well and getting some good rest.

Keep shining His Light and fighting the good fight.

In His Grace,

    Christopher Hopper · 11 Aug ’14 at 8:44 am

    Your insight into world happenings is precisely why I didn’t expound; time better used elsewhere (see my first longer response to Michael H. here in the comments on just that). Spot on, Ryan. I think it’s a distraction summoned by a religious spirit.
    As to your point of science and faith going hand in hand, shouldn’t they? Is it not God who invented the very things that science seeks to reveal? (And therefore, is not science God’s too?). Agreed.
    Whether or not someone believes in a flood, literal or allegorical, or a six day or a 6 million year creation, wether or not someone believes the multi-headed beast in Revelation is literal or metaphorical, and a third of the stars being swept away is a meteor shower or a simile—I could traverse hundreds of Biblical nuances that Christians have disputed for centuries, knowing that it’s audacious to think I might suddenly have them right in my day—has no bearing on the supernatural grace extended through the life, death and resurrection of God the Son as foretold by the scriptures and as powerfully demonstrated in my life. For the power *is* the message. It does not need the Bible to support it (though it surely does); how else were people saved throughout epochs of human history in which the printed Bible was not accessible to humanity? How else have I met Chinese Christians who’s faith and belief seem far stronger than mine, but who’ve never touched a Bible? While people endlessly dispute scripture, they so often fail to honor the Person. As Michael Gungor summarized in Part II, in western culture we’ve largely forsaken the person of Jesus and replaced him with dependency on the Bible. I love scripture; I’ve made a lifelong commitment to be in it daily. But it is not Him, it is merely a breath from him. And the frailty of man seen within its composition does not cause me to stumble should I find error within it. It only makes me love Him more. Jesus is perfect doctrine. And everything and everyone else, including me, houses error.
    A statement from the likes of Michael Gungor does not shake me in the least. In fact, it causes me to ponder the immense room there is within the Gospel for thinkers, dreamers, addicts, cynics, doubters, believers, flakes, teachers, coaches, delinquents, thieves, nobles and yes, even scientists. I wonder how many brilliant minds we’ve shoved away because their science tells them, according to natural laws (set in place by God!), that the universe is millions and billions of years old? They conclude this because of simple scenarios, like the millions of light years it’s taken for Earth to be able see the light traveling from any of the distant stars. The universe and those stars *had* to exist for that long simply to transmit the light here. But because they don’t believe God could *make* the light get here the day He created those firmaments in the heavens (as it’s been argued), we reject those thinkers, saying there’s no room for them in the faith? How many great minds have we shunned from Christendom?
    (Ironic that the secular mind might have more honor for a natural law—the unmitigated speed of light—than a Christian might).
    By similar standing, reading scientific and historic accounts of a partial flood model over the region of Mesopotamia (including extremely simple conclusions on why the writers of Genesis would have thought “the whole earth” was covered) by completely godless people makes much more sense then the crazy explanations that creation scientists purport. Honestly, I’m embarrassed by what some of my Christian brothers and sisters write and publish. I wince more times than I agree. If we’re truly going to say it takes faith to believe in a world-wide flood, let’s leave it there and just use faith, because we look bad trying to use science. I would rather have “I don’t know, I just believe,” as my response than trying to apologeticize with the tools most “Christian thinkers” have given me.
    And to the scientific community, I’d remind them that they still don’t know where it all came from. For as far back at they can point, they still don’t have an epicenter. A cause. And it’s there that their simplest answer may just be their most logical: He is.
    Instead of dividing and deriding, instead of marginalizing and mandating, I pray we can exercise the grace we read about from the great thinker C.S. Lewis where he was able to celebrate the person in any life-position, knowing that God was certainly drawing them in context. Could not a man in a false worldview or religious pursuit be unwittingly resisting things within that scheme that are anti-Christian by nature, while subsequently accepting elements within that thought process that are uniquely Christian? Similarly, could not the Christian understanding of God be expounded upon and even illuminated by an unChristian mind? For it operates just as the a Creator desired it to with or without: Brilliantly.
    For a Christian who’s threatened by some point of the Bible being found different than they imagined it and therefore cracking the foundation of the entire structure, I would simply run to the extreme and say even if it was all found to be erroneous, my life has been too deeply marked by my relationship with the real Jesus to deny his presence and power over what was penned. I must know and be known by the One who is alive.

Comments are closed.