Driscoll's Apology and Question

Mark Driscoll has now commented on Brian McLaren's post at Out of Ur...

Brian, as someone who has known you for many years I will, out of sincere and true love for you, ask one simple question and kindly request that you answer it.

Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?

I hope this question is simple, clear, and personal enough to result in an answer of either yes or no. Perhaps my attempt at some prophetic sarcasm which is commmon in Scripture was not well received. So, rather than repeating my tone I would like to simply ask your forgiveness if your have been wounded and get to the point of all this controversy. People like me who have known you, followed you, and learned from you for many years would simply like to know the bottom line for you personally with all of the other issues set aside for the time being. If you refuse to answer I am sure you can understand why accusations and concerns will be coming from both the right and the left and your answer will at least enable you to speak for yourself. So, with all respect would you please answer the question my brother?

(HT: KC)

Comments

[scott zeller]

i think that's a fair question.

[bob hyatt]

A fair question and a lousy apology :)

[Steve McCoy]

Bob, if he thinks he did something wrong, this is a lousy apology. I think this is an unapologetic apology, enough to get a hearing on his question but not enough to admit wrongdoing. I don't think Mark feels he said something wrong.

[Joel Maners]

I've heard many of the arguments for homosexuality and gay marriage. To me, you can use the same arguments for group marriage as well. Is there nothing that isn't up for grabs here? I have enjoyed MccLaren's work in the past but I'd like to know what he consiers to be the non-negotiables.

[Matt]

Joel: Very good point. Sexual matters become quite the slippery slope once you deconstruct the orthodox Christian values. Along those same lines, this is where McLaren's appreciation for deconstructionist thought (Derrida, et al) comes home to roost.

[bob hyatt]

I agree! He doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Can't wait till my kids try that on me :)

[Steve McCoy]

Bob, I encourage you the next time you see Driscoll to try to give him a spanking. I would pay to see that. :)

[Denny Burk]

Are we sure that this post is authentic? It looks pseudonymous to me.

[Scott M]

Joel,

It sounds like from your comments, you and I agree in our interpretation of scripture that God's design in mankind was for one man and one woman to be joined in a lasting union of body, mind, heart, and spirit. Further, that union is not only good (it is not good for man to be alone), scripture hints that some aspect of it reveals part of the mystery of God.

However, your question does raise other interesting ones, though not perhaps the ones you anticipated. For given that model, it is undeniably true that God accepted, used, and even blessed those in plural marriages and other complex arrangements. Israel. David. Solomon. (Just to name a few.) Further, at the time of Jesus and Paul, it was still not uncommon for men to have more than one wife.

Further, today we accept in our midst those who are divorced and remarried. I believe it is indisputable that scripturally, by the very words of Jesus, those of us in that situation are living in a state of unrepentant adultery. And yet, somehow God blesses, helps, welcomes, and uses those who find themselves in that state of brokenness.

So then, what is it about this particular relational sin that causes you to limit God's ability to work with people within relationships that are less than his ideal? I'm not trying to trap you. I'm genuinely curious.

[Hashman]

Although I am sympathetic with Driscoll's point and I share his frustration with not getting a "straight" answer, I completely agree with Steve McCoy's assesment of is "lousy" apology.
To borrow from MarkD, his apology was pretty gay.

Also, I read Brians response. The way he answers questions reminds me of politicians on talk shows who are trying to make everyone happy, while not actually taking a position.

[christian]

In a blaton effort to use this controversy and have more then my wife read my blog, I had this posted last night while watching my 11pm seinfield rerun!

http://emergantmidrash.blogspot.com/

[steve carr]

I agree that this post doesn't look authentic. One of the problems in the blogging world is that anyone can post something under anyone's name and get a reaction [there's a few blogs where Andy Stanley was supposed to be commenting that I highly doubt were his thoughts].

Until I see something on Resurgance or another confirmed article, I'll still have my doubts.

[Steve McCoy]

I've emailed Mark. Who knows if he will respond, or when. I think the post does look authentic. It reads exactly like I would expect. And I would guess that the people at Out of Ur have tried to authenticate it and would have removed it if not from Mark. At least that's what I would do.

[bob hyatt]

Yeah- it's real. Andrew Jones has been in touch with both Driscoll and McLaren and I can almost guarantee that with the stink raised over this, if it wasn't real, Driscoll would have said something.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Bob. You can use the wave you are riding (since your open letter to Driscoll) to build a nice personality driven ministry of your own. :)

[Keith]

What if McLaren answers, "I don't know." Would people accept that? If not, why not?

[bob hyatt]

Whoo Hoo! Who wants our video feed for Sundays?
:)

[Roger N Overton]

Steve, are you sure this was meant to be an apology? Particularly because it doesn't sound like he thinks what he said was wrong, it doesn't appear that he meant this to be a formal apology.

I appreciate your fair and balanced coverage of all this!

[Steve McCoy]

Roger, my first comment in this thread explains what I think. I don't think Driscoll has a problem with what he said, but I don't know or speak for him.

Steve "Fair and Balanced" McCoy ;)

[Jeff]

I would expect McLaren, in 3 or 4 paragrapsh to answer "I don't know", since that is entirely consistent with his epistemology.

[Joel Maners]

Scott,

Thanks for your comments. I think we have to be careful to not confuse God tolerating a practice with His accepting it. This is what Jesus was speaking to in Matthew 19. The Pharisees come to Jesus with Deuteronomy 24:1-5 as well as 1500 years of history on their side. The premise that because the law tolerated divorce, was that a signal that God accepted it as normative in human relations? Jesus of course brings us right back to the Beginning to show God's intent. So why does God regulate divorce? Because their minds were so set on divorce, God had to create laws that protected the victims of their practice. Does that mean that divorced people were just written off as perpetual sinners? By no means. A marriage is made by two people but either one or both can shatter it. Just because the Law regulates it doesn't mean God accepts it as normative. The same can be said of polygamy. The premise that it was approved by God is false. Again, that doesn't mean that God didn't work in and through a sea of brokenness to accomplish His work. The same could be said of concubinage and slavery. Almost no one would argue that Paul's instructions to slaves and slave owners is justification for the existence of slavery. But since we are not confronted with concubinage, slavery, and polygamy in the West, we just shrug that off and go on.

Now, can God work with, in, and though people who are in homosexual relationships? Of course He can. He demonstrated again and again that He uses all types of people to accomplish His will. Now if you are asking me if God will accept a person who repeatedly and intentionally violates His will concerning homosexual relationships and refuses to agree with (confess) scriptural teaching on this matter? I'm not God but I have to ask how we would feel about this issue if we were dealing with any other sin such as cheating, gluttony, lust, angry outbursts etc. I don't think homosexuality is any more sinful than any other sin. But there are sins which effect others and the community to a greater extent than others. I think it's obvious from the Law. The punishment for fornication was totally different from adultery. Of course, adultery was far more injurious to the society.

One last thing, Leviticus instructs Israel to leave the edges of their fields for the poor to gather grain. So the question comes back, "Well, how do you define an edge?" But the command is followed by the statement "I am the Lord your God." I think that God is telling us that the real truths in scripture are rooted in this one reality, God's sovereignty. If we really take His rule in our lives seriously, we'll seek not to go as close as we can to the edges to harvest. No, we'll just rejoice in who God is, share his concern for the poor and leave a whole bunch on the edges for the poor. The Jews had an entire book written called "Edges" to define what the edges of the field were. I think the fact that we are looking for the boundaries says something about our hearts.

Thanks for your follow up. You've given me much to think about.

[jvpastor]

"Perhaps my attempt at some prophetic sarcasm which is commmon in Scripture was not well received. So, rather than repeating my tone I would like to simply ask your forgiveness if your have been wounded and get to the point of all this controversy."

Man I wonder if this kind of apology would work with my spouse? Mark Driscoll is obviously an arrogant asshole.

[Tim]

Good grief. Now there's some Christian charity.

[jvpastor]

I know, I know, i'm an arrogant asshole as well. It takes one to know one.

[sam stilley]

Could we all agree that Driscoll is arrogant and his tone hurts our feelings and could we all agree that it would really help if McClaren would declare himself on the issue?

[Hashman]

I found an great statement from Bonhoeffer that I think is relevant to McLaren's dillema.

If we are to be obedient to God’s word, we cannot stand idle while our brother falls into sin. Bonhoeffer says that reproof is necessary, for "the practice of discipline in the congregation begins in the smallest circles. Where defection from God’s Word in doctrine or life imperils the family fellowship and with it the whole congregation, the word of admonition and rebuke must be ventured. NOTHING CAN BE MORE CRUEL THAN THE TENDERNESS THAT CONSIGNS ANOTHER TO HIS SIN."

[Winston-Salem]

The following comment seems obvious to me, so maybe it is implicitly understood. It seems anyway to be the basis for the bait of questioning McLaren's position.

If homosexual behavior were not a sin, the correct response to it would be clear. The only "agony" over the proper "pastoral" response comes with recognizing that it is sin.

So for McLaren, the following must be true: either it IS sin or IS POSSIBLY sin, and we can dispense with the IS/ISN'T debate and talk about pastoral response.

[billmelone]

Good point Winston. Whether McLaren is or isn't against homosexuality is not something I'll lose any sleep over. McLarens exposition of Leviticus and stuff and the pastoral response--thats a bigger issue. Driscoll isn't engaging the more serious issues and I see no reason to pee my pants over the fact that there is another christian leader out there with liberal leanings.

[Steve McCoy]

If anyone is still unsure, Mark let me know that this was his comment on the Out of Ur blog.

[Hashman]

Has any heard of a response from McLaren? Does he even know that Mark "apologized"?

[Steve McCoy]

I'm sure McLaren has heard, but I have heard nothing of a response.