Contact Us

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

For contact information go to:

STAFF – Executive Director, Theologian and Mission Director, Treasurer

COORDINATORS – Country and Regional Other Sheep Coordinators


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

5 comments for “Contact Us

  1. April 26, 2014 at 6:09 am

    I’m James Wandera Ouma, ordained full-time minister by the Association of Evangelical Christian Churches (AECC) and a member of the Association of Evangelical Clergy (AEC) since 2003. I`m also the founder and Executive Director of LGBT Voice Tanzania.

    I have worked tirelessly defending, protecting and advocating for the general well-being of LGBT people in Tanzania and Africa since 2009.

    I’m applying to work with you in Tanzania; there is no any ministry or church that is affirming and inclusive of LGBT people.

    Please consider accepting me as the Other Sheep Coordinator in Tanzania


    James Wandera

    • Administrator
      June 12, 2014 at 3:03 am

      Hi James, We are very interested in exploring working together. Thank you for writing us and sharing with us your calling and ministry. I will be contacting you through the email you’ve provided. Regards, Steve Parelli

  2. Jim Quattrone
    September 28, 2014 at 11:35 am


    I just read a letter in our local newspaper about Pastor Steve Parelli and the ministry of Other Sheep. I wanted to go on the website just to see the information that was here and the biblical basis.

    I have struggled with the biblical basis of homosexuality – I have always believed that scriptures say that it is sin. I currently work/volunteer with an organization that many from the LGBT community participate in. I in no way would ever exclude anyone from our ministry and believe that the love of Christ covers all people and that we need to continue presenting that love and letting all know the way to Him.

    I would love to get further information about your seminars and the biblical basis of what you are teaching. As I said – I have been taught and believe that the homosexual act is sin (and do believe any sexual act outside of marriage is sin) however I have recently praying about this and searching for the Lords will.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

  3. September 29, 2014 at 9:47 am

    Go to the following link (a PDF document) for an exegetical summary study on each of the “clobber passages” —

    Go to this page for a listing of additional related studies —

  4. D Webb
    April 4, 2015 at 10:02 am

    In view of your open perspective on everything, hope you’d include this Wall Street Journal editoral on Indiana Law:

    The New Intolerance
    Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.
    March 30, 2015 8:03 p.m. ET

    In the increasingly bitter battle between religious liberty and the liberal political agenda, religion is losing. Witness the media and political wrath raining down upon Indiana because the state dared to pass an allegedly anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The question fair-minded Americans should ask before casting the first stone is who is really being intolerant.

    The Indiana law is a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed 97-3 in the Senate and that Bill Clinton signed in 1993. Both the federal and Indiana laws require courts to administer a balancing test when reviewing cases that implicate the free exercise of religion.

    To wit: Individuals must show that their religious liberty has been “substantially burdened,” and the government must demonstrate its actions represent the least restrictive means to achieve a “compelling” state interest. Indiana’s law adds a provision that offers a potential religious defense in private disputes, but then four federal appellate circuits have also interpreted the federal statute to apply to private disputes.

    The federal RFRA followed the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith ruling in 1990 that abandoned its 30-year precedent of reviewing religious liberty cases under strict scrutiny. Congress responded with RFRA, which merely reasserted longstanding First Amendment protections.

    In 1997 the Supreme Court limited RFRA’s scope to federal actions. So 19 states including such cultural backwaters as Connecticut, Rhode Island and Illinois followed with copy-cat legislation, and Indiana is the 20th. Courts in 11 states have extended equally vigorous protections.

    Indiana was an outlier before the new law because neither its laws nor courts unambiguously protected religious liberty. Amish horse-drawn buggies could be required to abide by local traffic regulations. Churches could be prohibited from feeding the homeless under local sanitation codes. The state Attorney General even ruled Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college which hires on the basis of religion, ineligible for state workforce training grants.

    Becket Fund Executive Director Kristina Arriaga discusses the controversy surrounding the Hoosier State’s religious freedom law. Photo credit: Associated Press.
    In February, 16 prominent First Amendment scholars, some of whom support same-sex marriage, backed Indiana’s legislation. “General protection for religious liberty is important precisely because it is impossible to legislate in advance for all the ways in which government might burden the free exercise of religion,” they explained.

    That hasn’t stopped the cultural great and good from claiming Indiana added the religious defense in private disputes as a way to target gays. If this is Indiana’s purpose, and there’s no evidence it is, this is unlikely to work.

    The claim is that this would empower, say, florists or wedding photographers to refuse to work a gay wedding on religious grounds. But under the RFRA test, such a commercial vendor would still have to prove that his religious convictions were substantially burdened.

    And he would also come up against the reality that most courts have found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In all these states for two decades, no court we’re aware of has granted such a religious accommodation to an antidiscrimination law. Restaurants and hotels that refused to host gay marriage parties would have a particularly high burden in overcoming public accommodation laws.

    In any event, such disputes are rare to nonexistent, a tribute to the increasing tolerance of American society toward gays, lesbians, the transgendered, you name it.

    The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage.

    Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party. That’s the only way to explain the born-again opportunism of Hillary Clinton, who tweeted: “Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn’t discriminate against ppl bc of who they love.”

    By that standard, Mrs. Clinton discriminated against gays because she opposed gay marriage until March 2013. But now she wants to be seen as leading the new culture war against the intolerant right whose views she recently held.

    The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.

    Liberals used to understand that RFRA, with its balancing test, was a good-faith effort to help society compromise on contentious moral disputes. That liberals are renouncing it 20 years after celebrating it says more about their new intolerance than about anyone in Indiana.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *