Driscoll Responds to McLaren

Mark Driscoll has responded to Brian McLaren's post on the "homosexual question."  It's posted on the same blog as McLaren's post: Out of Ur (Leadership Journal's blog).

This is getting interesting.  Driscoll's first line...

Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.

Driscoll's best line...

I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.

And don't miss the main points...

And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.

As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.

Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.

In conclusion, this is all just gay.

-Pastor Mark Driscoll

UPDATE: The original article was slightly tweaked, so I tried to make sure my post represents what is now public.

Comments

[Kevin Bussey]

I just wish I knew how he really felt. Thanks for the link. I agree with him!

KB

[D.R. Randle]

All I can say to that is . . . DANG!

When I read this I'm thinking one-fall, no-holds-barred, loser-leave-home, cage match.

[Joe Kennedy]

I kinda enjoyed it too. I just wish Driscoll had been more clear about his position. I haven't seen someone get called out like that since high school gym class.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

I'm sorry, but its resemblence to a "high school gym class" calling out should further demonstrate the lack of maturity Driscoll continues to display in these kinds of exchanges. He discredits himself and his position by doing that, in my opinion.

Peace,
Jamie

[Keith]

In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.

Was that really what McLaren said?

[Steve McCoy]

Jamie, I think I know where you are coming from, but I encourage everyone to consider his position even if you hate his delivery. To discount it because of how he says it is just as immature, IMHO.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Steve,

I completely agree with you. I hope you do not think that I have rejected his position on the merits of his delivery. While I differ greatly with Mark's position, I do have issue with McLaren's failure to affirm, even gently, with what Scripture says on the issue. However, I find Mark's stance more offensive and dangerous than Brian's evasiveness.

Peace,
Jamie

[kyle w.]

While I would certainly land on the side of Ascol, Wilson, et al in this discussion on homosexuality, I wonder what exactly Driscoll is accomplishing with this post. He's making conservatives laugh, but he's just pissing the moderates and the Emergent crowd off. Am I right in saying this? If I am, he's serving no other role than that of the talk radio host who polarizes his audience for ratings. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Mark's preaching, but this is different.

[Keith]

I'm actually having a hard time understanding Driscoll's "position" in this piece--I don't really see one. He obviously disagrees with McLaren's article. Fair enough--I'm with him on that. However, he never deals with McLaren's real argument, and the description he does offer of it mischaracterizes it.

He offers us a lot of snarky cut-downs and snide remarks, but the single substantive counter-argument he offers is a slightly misused prooftext which, in its context, was encouraging Christians to proclaim Christ to people who were insulting and persecuting them--not demanding that they have a ready-made answer on every theological and ethical question. Under Driscoll's interpretation of this verse, we'd all have to have an answer on every point of doctrine or every ethical dilemma ready to go at all times. I doubt he even lives up to that standard or would want to.

As I read McLaren's article, I hear a pastor saying, "Man, this is a really hard issue. I'm in agony over it. Sometimes, I think one side is right, and sometimes I think the other side is right. And while both sides are beating me over the head and telling me what I should believe, I'm having to deal with real people with real hurts and real lives--and, in that context, I'm not sure that whatever answer won't be based more on the pressure I'm getting than on God's will. So let's take some time and think about this one, pray about it, seek wisdom, and then see what comes of it. Maybe then we'll have the peace about one side or the other that we can't find now."

If that's a correct interpretation of what he's saying, that's hardly a "homo-evangelical" position. It's a call for caution, discernment, and a rejection of the politicization of our theology. If people disagree with that--great. But deal with the argument that he actually made and not one that he didn't.

[Hashman]

If a couple (man and woman) who were devoted to one another came to Brian and said, "I am so in love with this woman and I can't imagine my life without her. Do you think it would be a sin for me to divorce my wife and marry her?" Would he get a different kind of answer? And why? Would coming up with the right answer be as agonizing or such sould searching? and why is it different?
Hashman

[JACK]

I think what I find most frustrating about McClaren's post is the impotence he expresses as a pastor. I fully agree with him that one must be pastoral. Doctrine isn't what attracts people to Christianity in that powerful way that ultimately changes them. So I share his concern for approaching the question being posed by the person he is talking to, in all the facts and circumstances of their lives.

But his answer reads as if he must begin from scratch. As if this is a question the Church has never faced before. As if Christians have never carefully thought about how to understand sexuality in the light of Christ. I'm all for admitting personal limits to having the answers, but his message implies that it isn't that he doesn't know, but that Christianity doesn't know what to think of this question.

And that is a great problem, because this is a horrendously important question for our age. Not on the theoretical level, but on the deeply personal one. In the Catholic world this has been recognized, so much so that John Paul II devoted the first years of Wednesday audiences of his pontificate to spelling out his Theology of the Body, extending on work he did when he was a Cardinal during Vatican II. And I would tend to agree with the current pope, Benedict, who sees this as a larger problem -- our failure to truly understand love, so much so that he devoted the first encyclical of his pontificate, Deus Caritas Est, to that topic.

That's what's frustrating about McClaren's response. People are coming to him with important questions, questions about the desires they experience. And he is unable to answer them. Unable to tell them about how the desire is a sign of their desire for total satisfaction, which if reflected upon, points outside of oneself, to something Infinite. He is unable to answer them, not because an answer isn't possible, but because he chooses not to draw a conclusion on the answer. Why? Because we don't have sufficient experience and revelation on the subject to draw some conclusions? No, because he's afraid of being boxed in politically. While trying to not be labeled as belonging to one ideology or another, he nonetheless succumbs to their results: an unsatisfying answer that gives no life.

[Jason Smith]

Are you sure M. Driscoll really posted that comment?

[bob hyatt]

Steve-

Having already agreed with you on your assesment of McLaren's piece I now have to ask you why in the world you would praise or encourage this kind of pettiness?

Driscoll needs to learn that snide comments do not substitute for a good argument. He's not going to insult anyone into changing their mind.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
I agree with Bob and others here. If this is what Driscoll said, he should be embarrassed of himself for such sarcastic rhetoric.

Sarcasm is an evasive form of anger, not humor. As a leader, Driscoll has a responsibility to be more responsible.

This is just the sort of dialogue we don't need.

[Steve McCoy]

I don't have time to say much. "The Donger need sleep."

Someone emailed and asked my opinion, which I haven't shared yet. I said it's typical Driscoll, which is to say that he says it harder than it needs to be said.

Here's what's interesting to me. When politicized rhetoric comes out of the mouths of Christian pundits, I loathe it. When Driscoll says it with flamethrowers, it makes more sense to me. He's dealth with "emerging" things, he's dealing with it every day in his church. And I really think he is seeing tremendous change in the lives of people through an in-your-face directness that comes out in posts like this one.

I wouldn't say it this way, but I think he actually has results behind his directness. More tomorrow.

[iMonk]

Between Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll, I actually want to buy Mclaren a beer. Stop in the BHT. It's on me :-)

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Steve,

I look forward to your post tomorrow. Simply having success using directness does not speak to its integrity. People will know we are Christians by our love for one another. I worry at the greater price paid in the success gained using the method. You reap what you sow.

Peace,
Jamie

[Paul]

What concerns me about a response like Driscoll's is that it trivializes the people he's speaking about; not McLaren, but homosexuals. I go away from comments like his with the impression that he thinks they are sub-human.

And that's the genius of McLaren's post. He so humanizes the people we are talking about. Even in one of Paul's most direct statements about homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6 he goes on to say, "and such were you. But you've been washed clean." He just told them that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God but he comes off so pastoral as he does so because he never leaves it there. I get the impression that Driscoll wouldn't mind ending it just before the "But..." and McLaren wants to make sure that we at the very least recognize everything after the "But...."

This is an interesting topic for me because I've struggled for over 10 years with how to relate to a long-time childhood friend who came out of the closet. Not only that, he pastors a church in the UCC. Do I dehumanize him? Do I write him off? Do I continue to love him as a friend?

I get a strong sense that Driscoll and McLaren would give me two very different kinds of advice on that.

[Paul]

I don't know McLaren but I'll say this for him. He has a knack for getting some of us uptight evangelicals talking about things in new ways. It very well may be that because of this very kind of discussion some people get a little more heart in them about this kind of subject, and others may get a little more thinking on this kind of subject. And that very well could be what McLaren intends in the first place.

[Hashman]

Some seem pretty upset that Mark used sarcasm.
Is all sarcasm in an of itself sinful? Seems like I can think of some writings from Isaiah and Paul's writings to the corintians that were pretty sarcastic.

Hashman

[ScottB]

To discount it because of how he says it is just as immature, IMHO.

Not when he can't take his own advice - if he hadn't quoted it, I'd assume the part of 1 Peter 3:15 that talks about "gentleness and respect" had been on the receiving end of some correction fluid in his version.

But I guess it's ok to violate those parts of scripture. They're towards the back, after all.

[Ryan]

I am failing to see the problem with what Driscoll wrote. Sadly, one of the biggest elements that is missing from Christian conversation about touchy issues is wit and humor. I applaud Driscoll for writing with both and at the same time being faithful to the truth. If you do not like Driscoll "tone" then could that be because he just takes the ideas of Mclaren to their logical conclusion.

[bob hyatt]

It's interesting to me that shortly after this was published, it was revsed to soften it. I'd like some explanation from teh editors as to what was taken out (the part about goat sex) and why (because it was clearly over the line).

[Jason Sampler]

Paul,
Let me address your comments, please. I read Driscoll's response and I didn't catch any 'sub-human' aspects to his thought. Of course, his comment at the end ('this is all just gay') was anything but sensitive. However, I think he's just as pastoral as McLaren. His stance against Dobson shows his concern for homosexuals.

It was a rant against McLaren's 'I'll do anything to avoid offending anyone' mentality, not a rip on homosexuals.

(p.s., and this makes no difference, but i'm anything but emergent, emerging, or whatever. i've really got no side on this issue. i don't read driscoll or mclaren)

Blessings,
Jason

[Paul]

Jason,

Yeah, his last statement and his first statement: "Brian Mclaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals."

Two poor bookends and the first one sets one's first impression (and often taints what follows). It's hard to read those statements and not think that deep down the people struggling in that sin are being trivialized.

But maybe that's just me.

Thanks for the response.

[GJ]

This is beginning to remind me of Russ Moore's post on internet abuse... o.0

Although I do not care for McClaren's writings, we can't expect the majority of people to take us seriously if we always respond the way Driscoll did. Sure we don't discount the message, but we sure don't need to write like that. At least not publicly. If Driscoll thinks that hard edge would reach McClaren, then why not send an email to him?

Peace,
GJ

[sam]

frankly, regardless of what you think of the issue, Driscoll's comments are just ass-ish. trivializing the issue doesn't make your position right, or another's wrong; it only makes you look like a jerk. This is exactly the kind of stuff that turns people off from the church--the ad hominem crap, not the "we're all equal under the Gospel", which is a better approach.

so, driscoll, if you read this, shame on you.

[Kgreg]

Kgreg here, repentant homosexual and servant of the Lord Jesus.

Brothers, we've all stuck our foot in our mounth when the Gospel should have been coming out of it.

I confess that my initial response to McLaren was anger, so I waited a while before responding. I admonish Brother Mark to do the same in the future. McLaren's failures do require a response, but they require one that isn't colored by emotion, but rather one that is solely an expose' of truth and falsehood.

I trust we won't let the devil damage the church by using the way Brother Mark chose to respond.

[Rick Bennett]

As someone who knows both parties, I can say that Paul, who spoke at 11 pm last night has hit the nail on the head of what Brian was trying to accomplish, even if he did not do it well.

He was wanting to stir things up and get people talking.

As for Mark and CT, although I do not mind caustic language at times, I must admit the tone and language is not something CT should be putting out there.

I think that those who find nothing wrong with Driscoll's tone may need to ask themselves if they like it because he expressed their own sentiments as hard as they would like. Just because you or I FEEL the same way, does not mean we should SAY IT in such an ungracious and mean-spirited manner.

As BEPs once said, "Where's the Love?"

Steve, I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that you are not terribly concerned with the tone. From everything you post, this type of behavior is usually something you are against. Is this okay because of the stature Mark has in your eyes? Or, is it because it is genuinely funny, even if it is mean?

(just asking)

I am posting on this soon on my blog, which is not a regular place to go. But, I am dealing with the relational aspects and the disengenuous comments that Mark said, when I know these guys were once friends. This saddens me.

[Steve McCoy]

Here are my "slept on it" thoughts.

There are many people out there talking for Christians who have a tone that frustrate me. Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that, which is why Rick asked his questions of me. Good questions.

Nearly all of the time when I gripe about the tone of others, it's typically because they haven't understood before speaking, because they scold the culture, or because they speak loud but don't seem to do squat to love those they speak against. Almost always it's an amalgam of the three.

I don't see these problems with Driscoll. I think he clearly shows he understands the issue because he holds to a biblical view of sexuality, IMHO. I think he also understands Emergent and it's leaders well, considering he is their friend (in some measure) and has been for some time, and is directly engaging them in theological and missional issues.

I don't see a problem with Driscoll scoldling the culture. Here he is responding to a Christian leader, which is exactly the group that Jesus would scold. You can guess how a Driscoll speaks to homosexuals all you want, but it seems pretty clear that he talks to more homosexuals about Christ than most of us (if not all). And he sees transformation.

And that explains why I don't see a problem with Driscoll and his actions. He seems to be not only involved in public words, but also public actions. He is practicing what he is preaching.

Whatever stature Mark has in my eyes (don't be jealous, Joe Thorn) is because we hold similar theological positions, missional positions, and have similar personalities. He also offers an excellent example of how to pastor. Plus I see a guy being a guy, and I have plenty of semi-guy guy's to follow already.

Also let me say (I think someone commented on this point above) that he is showing logical conclusions of thought and not just speaking out his arse. His zingers are never just making fun, but making points. That's one thing I've appreciated about guys like Doug Wilson.

I've already said I would say it different than Mark. But I don't have his background, his experience, his connections with McLaren and Pagitt, his "platform," etc. So knowing what I know, I trust he knows what he's doing.

[GJ]

I don't think we can say honestly that just because someone holds a certain theological view they have the right to respond the way Driscoll did. Even if it's the right view. Sure we are to be the salt and light of the world, but I think we have to do that with LOVE. There's ways to lovingly correct sin. And sure we see Jesus's anger often towards the Pharisee's, but how often do we see Christ leading gracefully? Let's ask ourselves, in our lives, when faced with truth, what spoke to us and our sin? The Spirit working through scripture with gentleness? Or someone getting in your face and throwing sarcastic remarks about what you may or may not believe?

If nothing else, if we want to be taken seriously, we have to talk on these issues seriously. If Driscoll wants to correct McClaren's theology, do it with scripture not sarcasm. We can't always poke fun at those who disagree with us. That last paragraph, especially, served the article no purpose.

PS... If Driscoll just did this to create and stir conversation, he did so at a terrible price.

[Joe Thorn]

"If Driscoll wants to correct McClaren's theology, do it with scripture not sarcasm."

Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets used sarcasm, overstatement, etc. In principle I think it's valid.

[Joe]

I read McClaren's post and had some issues with it, especially, the moratorium thing, but this fellow mis-quotes Scripture and I'm no seeing anyone jump on it. His use (dare I say mis-use?) of I Peter is appalling! What Peter says, is "Be prepared to give an answer for the HOPE you have." Not be prepared to give an answer on where your church stands on Gay Sex. So for scott b and anyone who "fails to see the problem with what Driscoll wrote" I offer this to you. He doesn't use a consistant hermaneutic. He misquotes Scripture completely missing the point of a verse. There are a ton of verses, he could have used and didn't to support his views. He could have talked about calling sin, sin, I'm not sure how I would have felt about his delivery but to use a verse that doesn't even deal with what he's talking about tells us something. At best it says, He is a poor student of Scripture and that the study, interpretation, and application of Scripture do not hold as high a place in his life as he would like us to think, at worse it tells us that he is simply a man who likes to rant and use the Scripture as a bullywhip, consistant hermaneutic be damned.
All of this leads me to ask a question, "I wonder when was the last time someone, anyone asked Mr. Driscoll (who I admittedly have never met) about the hope he has. The hope they see in him or do they just see an angry man, spewing sarcastic filth? Let me leave you with the verse:
" “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason FOR THE HOPE that you have."
I put the phrase in all caps because I don't know how to make it bold. May God use us all to cause people to ask about our hope

[Rich]

Why is everyone so up in arms over Driscoll's use of sarcasm when there are heavyweights within Emergent (THE Emergent) who do it all the time? Think about it. I won't name the bad cop(s) of Emergent, but Mclaren is clearly the Good Cop. He is careful and thoughtful with his words, but there are some of his friends who come in with the hard, biting stuff quite often. Again, I don't want to name names, but anyone who keeps up online, you know who is out there using tactics similar to what we see Driscoll doing here.

I think there is a place for sarcasm and bombast. And I don't fault any 'side' for it. But let's all be fair. Whether you snuggle up up to Driscoll, Emergent, or anyone else, let the playing field be fair. And if you call Driscoll on this, be sure and call out the other guys too.

[Scott M]

I suppose I'll try again. Driscoll's post was funny. I gather that's the norm for him. If so, and his typical style is sarcastic humor, then I don't see any reason to expect him to use a different style even if writing about a friend. Hopefully the friend is familiar with and accustomed to his approach.

With that said, I still don't understand why everyone has primarily latched onto the 5 year moratorium thing. It's presented more in the vein of, "I don't know, maybe this would help the conservation be more productive," than as anything prescriptive or even the main point of the article. Personally, I think the idea is either naive or silly. You can't expect people to talk about something for an extended period of time without those who have reached conclusions stating them. Scot McKnight is having a hard time keeping people from jumping ahead to their conclusion as he slowly moves ahead on this topic at his blog.

With that said, Mclaren's main point is that he does not see this topic as cut and dried as both sides do. The typical conservative view is that any expression of homosexual behavior is a horrible sin that must stop immediately. The typical liberal view is that monogamous homosexual relationships are perfectly OK with God and everyone should just deal. And both of those perspectives strike many of us as wrong. They both focus on behavior and not on people.

I've read Mclaren's article again and again and that's still the main point I get from it. We need to be more like Jesus and simply deal with the person at the point where we meet them. As Scot McKnight puts it, however sin has damaged them, they are still first and foremost an Eikon of God. The pope makes a similar point in his encyclical on Christian love.

Further, that's not a subtle point of his article. It says that to me as clear as a bell.

[Steve McCoy]

I've done a tad bit of trolling through other blogs on this issue and I find it silly that some out there are acting like Driscoll lacks compassion because we wouldn't speak to sinners this way. Let me just remind everyone he is talking to McLaren, a teacher, a pastor, a widely-read author. There are different approaches for teachers than for the random sinner (such as a homosexual).

[Lukas McKnight]

I think what bothers me most about Driscoll's response is his tone; whether he agrees or not with McLaren, his response is quite disparaging towards those in question (homosexuals).

If we are to invite everyone to the table to us, how likely are they to join us when we "converse" about them this way? It strikes me as very irresponsible and, ultimately, unloving.

[Rich]

Lukas,

You are correct. We can make it tough to make everyone at the table comfortable in joining the conversation (or even coming to the table). The thing is, those who are so upset with Driscoll have many in their camp that do the same things. Sometimes, they do worse and look down their theologically sturdy noses and cut off all conversation because someone just isn't as smart or enlightened.

Your Dad does the best job of anyone when it comes to inviting everyone to the table. I wish more folks handled themsleves that way. Until they do, I just wish everyone in the 'converesation' would quit jumping those who are more conservative for saying things like or how Mark did. Why? TOO MANY OF THEM DO TOO.

[Matt]

Getting "uptight Evangelicals" to think is no excuse for denying a tenent that has been understood for centuries. The text is pretty doggone clear that homosexuality is sin. McLaren is all but denying that point.

[Hashman]

Hey ScottM

"The typical conservative view is that any expression of homosexual behavior is a horrible sin that must stop immediately." Isn't that the Christian position on all sin. I don't think conservatives are saying gay sex should stop immediately but adultery can be tolerated for a while.

You said that "this position (of conservatives) strikes you as wrong". What is wrong about desiring for people to "sin no more". Jesus called the woman caught in adultery to "stop immediately".

Your last comment, "They both focus on behavior and not on people." I don't know if that is true or not. But wouldn't it be much more personal and offensive to focus on the person rather than the behavior. Isn't that our favorite cliche, "God hates the sin and not the sinner."

We are not sinful because we sin, we sin because we are sinful. The truth is that we are all sinful at heart and no matter what the issue the heart must be dealt with.

I guess I'm agreeing with you that the focus should be on the person ultimately, in the sense of acknowledging the source of sin, and the need for a heart transplant. Ez. 36:26 But I don't think it makes telling the truth and easier.

[Hashman]

Hey ScottM

"The typical conservative view is that any expression of homosexual behavior is a horrible sin that must stop immediately." Isn't that the Christian position on all sin. I don't think conservatives are saying gay sex should stop immediately but adultery can be tolerated for a while.

You said that "this position (of conservatives) strikes you as wrong". What is wrong about desiring for people to "sin no more". Jesus called the woman caught in adultery to "stop immediately".

Your last comment, "They both focus on behavior and not on people." I don't know if that is what they are doing or not. But isn't it potentially much more personal and offensive to focus on the person rather than the behavior. Isn't that our favorite cliche, "God hates the sin and not the sinner."

Don't we talk about behavior to avoid talking about the person. We are not sinful because we sin, we sin because we are sinful. That is a hard truth for our culture. The truth is that we are all sinful in nature, and all kinds of sins flow from it.

I guess I'm agreeing with you that the focus should be on the person ultimately, in the sense of acknowledging the source of sin, and the need for a heart transplant. Ez. 36:26

[Jeff]

Driscoll was too nice. McLaren failed Pastoring 101. He is completely conisistent with his epistemology of doubt and uncertainty.

[Steve McCoy]

Let me ask this question. This may be the best time to ask it.

Why is it so easy to rush to defend McLaren every time he avoids answering questions directly and love him for being a "thought provoker" (which I enjoy too), yet when Driscoll is, I think, just as thought provoking in a different way we discount it immediately?

When I read Scripture, I see many who provoke thought in a more Driscollian way (humor and even mocking in the prophets, sarcasm with Jesus), and some even like McLaren (who help people to realize where their rightness can be used in the wrong way).

If we are going to gain from what's best in the "emerging church" then we must hear those who provoke thoughts even though we don't like their approach or position. I've encouraged evangelicals do that with McLaren. I now encourage EC'rs to do that with Driscoll. Maybe the Bible really is clear enough that some who refuse to draw lines on the homosexuality issue (some are even pressing in the other direction) need a prophetic blast (see Elijah). False teaching doesn't just come from false religions or people who have everything wrong. It's the torquing of any one piece of truth.

I see room to ask good questions all sides on this. Questions of approach, dialogue, how we use truth, etc. But it would be better if those who don't yet understand McLaren would listen to him first. And those who have heard McLaren already need to listen to Driscoll for a minute.

[bob hyatt]

I agree, Steve. Driscoll needs to be listened to. AND he needs to be smart enough to speak in a way that the people he is speaking to will listen to him. Otherwise, he's just a bomb-thrower.

I won't clog your comments with more of my thoughts on this, but I think Driscoll's defeating himself here and said so here

[Joe]

Forget defending either person, just take what they say and compare it to Scripture. I am not trying to beat a dead horse here but Driscoll misquotes Scripture, that sticks hard in my mind.

[Steve McCoy]

I don't disagree with you Bob. I've said for a long time that Driscoll wants to influence the EC from inside, and I think he can, and is, and will. And he might be able to do that better with a different approach. But I can't make him change his approach, just as I can't make McLaren say something unambiguous.

This is so ironic to me. McLaren will maybe have a great audience with homosexuals because of his tone, but will he tell them the truth? I'm not convinced in the least. Driscoll for all his fire-breathing still has an audience with homosexuals, and if he is telling them the truth (which I see no reason to doubt) then he is probably seeing real conversions.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Steve,

As I have said earlier, McLaren frustrates me with his evasiveness on this issue, which I have been quite open about.

However, I still feel you have not clearly explained how using offensive sexual inuendo about beastiality is acceptable. Sure, he be friends with Doug, but this was a public forum. That alone was, IMHO, completely indefensible.

Yes, Mark does understand the issues of sexuality and the emerging culture. Granted (and fairly) it is from his very specific Scriptural & theological context. Yes, he has relationship with the leaders involved in the Emergent US organization (which does not represent the emerging church in general, btw). And yes, he engages homosexuals more than most of us here might. He should be respected and honoured for the service he gives to the Kingdom.

But for those same reasons, he should be modelling a better example in this kind of discourse. Someone stated that Jesus & the Apostles used sarcasm effectively, which I think is arguably true. However, I never once saw Jesus use sin flippantly as a punch line or use it in humour to reinforce a point, especially at anothers expense.

In the end, I believe that not only will Mark lose credibility over this, but also many others who share his position. That may not be right nor fair, but I think he has no one to blame but himself. You cannot try to tell me that a few vague references to sarcasm and even mocking humour in Scripture compare the vast number of passages that call for a gentle answer, grace, love towards our brothers, private correction whenever possible, etc.

I am not expecting you or anyone to denounce Mark. He is a good man of God who we all can learn a lot from. However, he is also human and, in my opinion, committed a very public wrong. I believe he needs to make it right.

Peace,
Jamie

[Scot McKnight]

For me the best indicator of what has happened is that neither McLaren nor Driscoll has us talking about the Christian view of homosexuality; neither has us talking about Jesus; neither has us exploring hermeneutics; both have us talking about them.

[the.pilgrim]

I think part of the problem is that some people have a mental block in their heads which leads them to conclude that "speaking in love" = "speaking like a nice, polite, well behaved little Victorian school boy".

Of course neither Jesus nor Paul talked like that. Jesus called a gentile seeker "a dog at the table" (translation "stupid bitch"), and Paul told his adversaries that he wished they'd cut their pensises off. Not nice. But notice that within 2 verses or so he's going on about love.

They really did say this things, AND they said them in love. Truly. If you can't imagine this as a possibility, maybe you should reconsider your opinions about Jesus and Paul.

Quite acting like the politeness police. Quite mimicking Miss Manners.

[JACK]

Personally, I agree with Scot M. A lot of breath is being wasted on discussing what amounts to in many ways the personality of these two "celebrities" versus discussing what is truly wrong or right with McClaren's actual pastoral advice that provoked all this or what an authentically pastoral message would have been.

[the.pilgrim]

oops that should read "these" and then later twice "quit"

{hangs head in shame}

[Lukas McKnight]

Is it loving, though, to use a term like "gay" to describe someone you don't agree with? Not only would I describe that as immature, but it is downright derogatory; how is that loving? I realize loving language isn't always "nice" but it is never demeaning and hurtful in a put-down sort of sense.

[Kgreg]

I disagree with McLaren. I've made that clear here.

I believe Driscoll tells the homosexuals in his audience the truth.

I have to admit that, being a repentant homosexual, when I read what Driscoll wrote, I said "Ouch".

[the.pilgrim]

That's special pleading, my friend.

I think its pretty clear that when Jesus used his sacrcastic handicap jokes (blind guides anyone?), he meant them to sting. They certainly were insults. He wanted them to hurt.

Its all about (1) timing, and (2) knowing your crowd.

Criticising Mark about not knowing his crowd, or having poor timing is one thing. Go ahead. Just realize in doing so you are acting like the politeness police and/or miss manners. Away with the moralists, I say.

Go ahead. Tell Mark he is rude. I think that was the point. Its how that kind of communication works. Just ask Jesus.

[the.pilgrim]

Quit being "holier than thou"... um... make that "holier than Jesus"!!!

[Wes]

The issue is whether the homosexual life is sin which dishonors the glory of God(Driscoll) or not really(McLaren). And being McLaren, a 'christian' preacher who does not apparently, believe that it matters.......MATTERS.

Remember what Paul told those who preached another gospel?

[Rick Bennett]

one quibble with your exegesis Pilgrim...

Jesus and Paul used sarcasm when DIRECTLY speaking to the person, not ABOUT the person, especially about someone they know well in a public forum, instead of speaking directly to them.

I know that McLaren had no idea that Mark had a posting on CT.

So, let me understand this

McLaren does not make a stand on a an issue he should and makes a statement about a moratorium that is odd and bothers us.

So, in response.

Driscoll uses sarcasm, sexual slurs, brags about his church and lack of commitment to the Religious Right and calls a former friend Tonto to make a point (and yes, much of it was funny- and some of it was not personal in a public forum, some of it was on the mark).

You guys are right, the context is very similar to what Jesus and Paul were doing. I have truly missed it all along.

The Hell with spiritual fruit when I can use sexual taunts and personally attack people I used to have a close relationship to.

The hell with manners and politeness. As long as I can say that it is done in love, I can say whatever the hell I want (but, I was speaking the truth in love man).

You are so right, Jesus and Mark did the same thing. I am such an idiot.

Thanks for the enlightenment The Pilgrim. Your understanding of Scripture wows me and your understanding of the actual true meaning of all of those words in a Hebrew context show every person concerned with niceness, politeness and friendliness are just wimpy little Brokeback homo-sissies on par with the Village People, Elton John (in his duck suit wearing days) and the guy from the Spear movie.

I will now go and watch Mel Gibson movies to understand how a man of God really acts in the face of adversity. And, tomorrow I will buy a gun. Then I am going down to the end of the street and call every sinner I meet a bitch, whore, etc. and I will make fun of handicap people. But, I will do it as a follower of Jesus and in love. really.

(sorry Steve- I felt a poor bit of sarcasm was appropriate at this time-you can delete this if you feel you should, but this justification of meanness in the guise of biblical mandate is ridiculous and takes us away from the point and following Jesus- I will leave now)

[the.pilgrim]

Wow. I touched a nerve. For the record I am a card carrying wuss. Even a nerd. I am Canadian, and I've never seen a real gun close up, let alone even touched one. I was, from time to time in highschool, wrongfully accused of being "homo".

Here's my points summarized:

1) rudeness does NOT = unloving.

2) If Jesus walked the earth today many Christians would tell Him to tone down the rhetoric and be more Christ-like.

3) There are times when being rude like Jesus is the Christ-like thing to do.

4) If you are in a huff about whether or not Mark picked the right time or place for this, its likely that you are being nit picky. Have a little humility, a little sense of humor, and get over it.

[the.pilgrim]

Quote: "The Hell with spiritual fruit when I can use sexual taunts and personally attack people I used to have a close relationship to."

Paul talked about spiritual fruit and used sexual taunts all in the same breath... and he used the sexual taunt as an attack on people he probably used to know.

Obviously prudence leads us to choose our times and places carefully.

But arguing over the rightness/wrongness of times and places is different from arguing that Mark was being unloving or even unChrist-like.

Grace and peace brothers and sisters, I'm out.

[Rick Bennett]

1) rudeness does not (sometimes) + unloving.

2)yup (but it still doesn't necessarily mean Mark was being Christ-like- or not)

3) There are (FEW or even SOME) times when being rude (in the eyes of some) like Jesus (but, isn't that a huge caveat itself- and one which must cause care on the part of the rude one) is the Christ-like thing to do.

4) Actually this was not as big a deal for me. The deal for me was the extra mile people went to justify Mark's behavior. Mark steps over the line all the time. Ask anyone in his congregation. I expect this from Mark (I have known him for over 6 years).

However, the time and place ALWAYS matter. Context ALWAYS matters. That is not picky, just because you declare it picky.

I will attempt to try and become humble and get a little bit of sense of humor. As an American it can be difficult, since we take ourselves seriously all the time and think to highly of themselves. I will try to be more Canadian next time.

peace

[Ryan DeBarr]

Jesus and Paul did not always speak directly to the person when they used insults. In fact, they usually were not speaking specifically to one person. When Jesus spoke, He generally spoke to crowds. When Paul wrote, his epistles were to entire churches.

I think ridicule is an appropriate response to McClaren's statements. Driscoll was far less arrogant and offensive than McLaren, who condescendingly ignored the consensus of 2,000 years of Christian history and pretended the Bible isn't really all that clear on homosexuality.

I'm all for being open minded, but Paul, Peter, Jesus, etc., have a few things un-nice to say about teachers who consistently challenge clear and settled matters of Christian teaching.

[Ryan DeBarr]

My experience with homosexuals is that many of them are quite good humored and frequently make their own gay jokes. There would be some offended by Driscoll's talk, but I think there would be just as many who find him funny even if they didn't agree.

[geo]

My question is: What is your churches stand on fat overweight people? Obviously they practice their "sin" on a daily basis. So what is your stand?
Funny isn't it that the church is so quick to condemn homosexuality but says nothing of the fried chicken eating obese fat pastor!

Peace
Geo

[the.pilgrim]

Presumeably you mean that gluttony is a sin. Not all big people are fat because of their diets, but point well taken. Hear that youth ministers? Encouraging your youth to wildly pig out on junk food during the events you plan is probably stupid. Drinking and doing soft drugs MIGHT actually be healthier.

Anyway.

Preaching against gluttony is different than having a weigh in at the church doors. Should churches bann fat folks? No. Churches should also not have (or try to have) "gay detectors" at the door either.

But what if gluttonous church members took on "gluttony" as essential to their very identity? What if they definitively named themselves "gluttonous"? What if they absolutely refused admit the sinfulness of gluttony?

Nobody wants a witch hunt. Nobody wants to be moralistic.

But can you see how this not a matter of moralism or even 'legalism'?

[Tim Ellsworth]

I think it's interesting (and sad) how so many people seem to be much more offended over the way in which Driscoll spoke than they are about the much greater offense of McLaren's content.

Say anything you want to regardless of truth content, but do it nicely, and you're OK. Speak truth, but with an edge to it, and you're just a big meanie.

[Christian Cryder]

I really agree w/ what Jack said way back up the page there: "I think what I find most frustrating about McClaren's post is the impotence he expresses as a pastor." Well said. You have just described my own frustration to a tee.

I'm afraid I really disagree with Jamie when he says: "In the end, I believe that not only will Mark lose credibility over this, but also many others who share his position". To me, it seems this is the fundamental fear of many postmoderns - we are afraid if we speak boldly, we will lose credibility.

Mark himself is an example to the contrary - I'd be willing to bet that what he's said here is not some fundamentally "new" conclusion. He has been speaking strongly for quite some time now, even against homosexuality, and yet he has still demonstrated the capacity to be very relevent, even to homosexuals (as Jamie himself points out in his comments).

The real question is "What gives Mark the ability to speak so strongly and yet still be heard?" Maybe Mark is just not concerned whether people like him? So much so that he's not worried to offend people by telling them what they need to hear. I get the feeling sometimes that such an approach simply doesn't compute for some emergents...

[Steve McCoy]

Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) has a nice post on the matter. It's very helpful for background.

[P.o.C.]

Some are trying to compare Driscoll's tone with McLaren's content. How about comparing the content of both? Driscoll uses strong language that apparently some find nothing wrong with. What does Driscoll's article have in terms of substance? He includes a quote from McLaren, but then doesn't address his actual points in favor of a few more snide comments. What about actually saying something about sexuality being multi-layered and complex? Apparently Driscoll disagrees but fails to say why. He'd rather talk about a 'Brokeback injunction' and say something about labyrinths.

Sarcasm without substance is just useless noise.

[Kiki]

The sarcasm was unnecessary. Yes, God is Holy. Homosexuality is an abomination in His sight. But so is all other sexual sin.

Let he who has never lusted after a scantily-clad woman, or lingered on a porn site on the internet, or found themselves in an inappropriate emotional affair cast the first stone.

We have got to start treating all sexual sin as an equal abomination in the sight of the Lord. Rather than teach a gospel of shame and legalism, let's give hope through the freedom from bondage that is found in Christ.

John Wesley in speaking of loving your neighbor, says that to do so is to love ".......AS YOURSELF, with the same invariable thirst after their happiness. Use the same unwearied care to screen them from whatever might grieve or hurt either their soul or body. This is love."

[Scott M]

Kiki,

I sort of agree with your thoughts. But at the same time I'm struck by the feeling that all of these discussions devolve too much into the arena of sin management and too little into grace, mercy, and transformation.

[Jeff]

What was helpful about Andrew Jones' stream of consciousness?

[Kiki]

Scott,

The guy who will be our student leader for '06-'07 struggles with same-sex attraction. But he has also led out in transparency, honesty and a need to be accountable.

He is one of the most incredible evangelists I have ever seen. Everywhere he goes, he is a light. And a lot of it is because he is real and open and honest about being human yet finding grace.

In our ministry, we believe in small group fellowship. That is where he finds accountability and godly, appropriate male fellowship.

But just as the guys keep him accountable in his same-sex attraction, he keeps them accountable for their heterosexual sins: when he notices their eyes lingering where they shouldn't, or when someone in 10 minutes late to Bible Study because they stumbled on a porn site while doing their homework.

We are immersed in an environment where sexual sin is a constant issue. We just got national attention because our campus shows porn movies using student activities funds. And almost 1/3 of the campus turns out to see them.

But you're not going to resolve the problem using sarcasm and harshness. One of the first things my husband was confronted with by our students was his occasional sarcasm. Even though it was in jest,it's a barrier.

Being graceful means being respectful, kind, and being open and transparent yourself in the acknowldedgement that we all struggle with various forms of sexual sin.

[Scott M]

Thanks for clarifying, Kiki. Now I better get the thrust of your first comment as well. I wasn't sure exactly how to interpret the tone and emphasis.

[Paul]

Be sure to also check out Bob Hyatt's post on the subject as well.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Paul. I have read and been following the comments on Bob's piece. I think it's helpful and should have linked it. Thanks.