Louie Giglio’s Statement to His Church

Louie Giglio has released a statement on his church’s website that gives more information about his ouster from the inaugural program. He writes:

Though I was invited by the President of the United States to pray at his upcoming inauguration, after conversations between our team and the White House I am no longer serving in that role.

Read the rest of Giglio’s statement here. The New York Times reported earlier today that the Obama administration initiated Giglio’s ouster.

An official with Mr. Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee said the committee, which operates separately from the White House, vetted Mr. Giglio. People familiar with internal discussions between administration and committee officials said the White House viewed the selection as a problem for Mr. Obama, and told the panel on Wednesday night to quickly fix it. By Thursday morning, Mr. Giglio said he had withdrawn.

[At some point yesterday, the above quotation was scrubbed from the NY Times website. The part about the White House telling the committee to “fix it” has been removed. I do not know how to account for this change. What you see above is the paragraph as it appeared early yesterday afternoon on the NY Times site.]

9 Responses to Louie Giglio’s Statement to His Church

  1. Mark Donaldson January 11, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    The “America as we know it” has been dead for a long time. We need to now put our faith only in God, who is the Lord of all things (including what happens in this country), and not in the things of this world. Don’t give up praying for America, but do not be surprised when America gives into the world and does not follow the Lord their God.

  2. Natalie Trust January 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    “The president has sold out to the Sodomites” Check yourself jimmiedon. Hateful and inappropriate use of the term.

    • dr. james willingham January 11, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

      Biblical term used appropriately. Check the Surgeon General in the days of Reagan.

      • Natalie Trust January 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

        In addition to what Ryan said, when you support the use of the term(as used above) you accuse them of actions simply based on their sexual orientation, and it is also an offensive term in the gay community. America is not worse off because gay people have voiced concerns. America is worse off when Christians resort to name calling in attempt to make a point. Failure on the part of the church to show the love of Christ, yet again.

        • dr. james willingham January 11, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

          In answer to the critics of the term, it is the same as when our Lord called the Scribes and Pharisees a “generation of vipers”(Mt.23:33) or when the word called me a fool for saying there is no God in the days of my Atheism. It is also likened unto the use of the word “sinner” to described both the lost and the converted as when Paul called himself a :chief” of sinners (I Tim.1:15). Political correctness is a short route to madness and disaster. Our Lord even called a woman by the inclusive term, “dogs,” as in, “it is not right to take the children’s bread and give it to dogs.”(Mt.15:26). That term clearly implies depravity, inability, and even reprobation (as in the dog returns to its vomit II Pet.2:22), and yet the woman agreed with Jesus. “True, Lord,” She said, and then argued that no one minded the dogs eating the little bitty crumbs that fell from their little masters’ table (Mt.15:27). Because she was willing to accept and even use it as the basis of her appeal to God for help, Jesus said she had “great faith.” What would He say to those who object to a accurate use of the term from the Old Testament which He called the word of God (in Jn.10:35), the Old Covenant which He regarded as God’s words actually spoken to the people of His day though the words involved there were spoken approximately 1400-1500 years earlier.

          And what will He say to you who want to set aside the clear teachings of the word of God for the vagaries of selective interpretation designed to suit a sinful life style?

          Look at what the Scribes and Pharisees did to our Lord due to His trenchant exposure of their evil doings. They crucified Him by means of the Romans, and it was likewise our sins also that helped to deliver Him to the death of Calvary, a terrible evil that we all must contemplate about ourselves. I use to go out in the cow pasture as a child to play war in which I killed multiplied thousands in fighting the wars of history that I had studied in books. I was acting out the anger seething in my heart and soul for deprivation of my parents, Basically, I was a murderer at heart until God was pleased to open my eyes and my heart to behold my sinfulness and His great mercy and grace. What your opinion is of my usage of the word of God only matters, if I take it wrongly or apply it for my own personal and perverted purposes. But if God could speak to the conviction of a fool and murderer like me, He can with no less power speak to convince you of His will concerning sodomy and those who defend a life style that He condemns. Just consider the life of adultery and fornication. God condemns that, too. He also condemns the liar, the thief, the blasphemer, the false witness, the covetous person. In fact, He speaks of the madness that is in the heart of every human being (Eccles.9:3) until death. We are all, in a sense, as mad as march hares or mad hatters (i trust that you will know the literary reference) or the rabied animal or the child molester (incest and pedophilia). But enough. I am nothing, no one of consequence. Why don’t you take up your quarrel as I did with the real cause of it: God almighty Himself? I said in the days of my Atheism: “How could there be a God and let happen to children what had happened to me?” Funny, when He showed up, I did not even think of that question.

          And years later, He explained why such things happened, but though I heard Him speaking and was laughing a happy, healthy laughter as though I heard the only thing that could explain it, I don’t know what He said. Interesting, no? As one devoted by necessity to the Intellect and intellectualism, it is hilarious that Jesus would explain such things and yet leave no knowledge of what He actually said by way of explanation. The one thing that has struck me more forcibly has been the intellectual depths of the Bible, its transforming power expressed in clarity and with perspicuity, its greatest problems. After all, if one can look at such clear words and think he or she really comprehends them due to their clarity, one surely then misses the depths of such teachings that are reflective of the omniscience that inspired them…like the friend who almost drowned in water that he was sure was only 2-3 feet deep, because he could see the grains of sand rolling along the bottom. But the depth was 18-20 feet. He had not recognized the magnifying power of a clear mountain stream, and it almost cost him his life. So with the word of God and its condemnation of our sins. I was so sure of my arguments, but in the presence of Jesus Himself, when He showed up, I found myself struck dumb and suffering from an anxiety to get away from such omniscient gaze. It made me feel so bad until the burden was lifted off my heart later that Saturday evening of Dec. 7, 1957.

          • dr. james willingham January 12, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

            Ryan: I didn’t choose the terminology. The Lord supplied it. Why don’t you take up your argument and debate with Him. You should try deprivation of both parents as a child of three. There is more, much more.

  3. Natalie Trust January 14, 2013 at 12:16 am #

    Truly, James, I don’t see it being fruitful to continue to use the kind of terminology you have chosen.

    • dr. james willingham January 14, 2013 at 11:53 am #

      Perhaps Ryan and Natalie would prefer to take on the Bible and the Lord about terminology. Perhaps they don’t care for therapeutic paradoxes. Such poor thinking, vain thinking is a short road to disaster. It is sort of like the teenagers’ idea of immortality and disaster only happens to other people and then it strikes one near and dear and the vulgar becomes imminent, graphic, in your face, fire from Heaven, catastrophic. Sometimes shock therapy works. At other times it is merely the harbinger of justice coming.

  4. Ryan Szrama January 14, 2013 at 10:12 am #

    I suppose my comments were excised from the thread above, because though I’m logged into WordPress, WordPress was not by default using my FIRST and LAST name.

    Wasn’t trying to skirt your policy, Denny, just didn’t notice that. My name should’ve been linked to my WordPress profile, which also identifies me as Ryan Szrama. If you’ve simply unpublished my comments, can you reinstate them? If not, I was simply belaboring the point with James that referring to homosexuals as Sodomites is inaccurate (let’s not forget there are female homosexuals) and needlessly offensive.

    If we’re going to offend, let’s offend with the gospel and a reasoned defense of biblical sexuality. Additionally, even if we “can” use a term because it originates in Scripture does not mean we “must” or even “should” in any particular situation. Therefore, James telling me to “take up the debate with God” is not even legitimate, because nowhere in Scripture does the Lord compel us to use any given term to address the homosexuals of our day.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes