McLaren Responds

McLaren now responds to the conversation over at Out of Ur on homosexuality, where his original post was made public.  It isn't short, and he deals with a number of issues.

McLaren's original post
Driscoll's response
McLaren's response

The Reformissionary discussion...

Moratorium on Truth?: Homosexuality
Driscoll Responds to McLaren

Other helpful posts elsewhere...

TallSkinnyKiwi: Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?
Bob Hyatt: Some Thoughts for Mark Driscoll

Comments

[Denny Burk]

My response is too long to post here (it's on my blog), but McLaren's piece can be summarized as follows:

McLaren still doesn’t have a position on whether homosexuality is a sin, and most of those who responded to his original piece are a bunch of meanies. We shouldn't discuss the homosexual question until conservatives learn how to be nice to McLaren and homosexuals.

[Kgreg]

Kgreg here, repentant homosexual (I say this so you know where I've been and where I'm going :) I am Quaker educated. Although the Quakers have hearts of gold, they are so far removed from the Gospels that they never talk about salvation or Jesus. They talk about love and peace and humility and generosity and gentleness of spirit, so very much like Brian McLaren sounds these days. If this is the direction the "Emergents" are going, then they will be just another cold, non-Gospel, "peace and social justice" quasi-religious organization. I do believe we are to exhibit those attributes and pursue those goals, but to do so to the neglect of the Gospels and the message of Jesus, salvation and repentance is a terrible, terrible mistake. Too many churches have allowed their good intentions and "love" for sinners to compel them into accomodating and even encouraging sin.

[Kevin Bussey]

Man,

I loved McClaren's books, but that his response was a wasted read. I don't know where he stands anymore now than I did when I first read it. He can spin it with the best of them. Driscoll may have been over the top, but at least I know where he stands. I can't help but think of Rev. 3:16 when I hear McClaren.

[Keith]

It's pretty amazing to me that people can read all of that and still totally miss McLaren's point.

[Kevin Bussey]

I'm not being funny or sarcastic, what is his point?

[Scott M]

OK. He's clarified and it seems I mostly understood his first article correctly. The one part I thought was silly (the moratorium), he clarified as not something he actually believes can be done, but more as a device to get people to think about their tone. I can accept that.

[Keith]

I'm not being funny or sarcastic, what is his point?

Kevin, he seemed to me to be making two points: (1) a lot of pastors really struggle with how to deal with this issue--both because of the hermeneutical and agonizing pratical questions that he listed; and (2) the prouncements on both sides are doing more harm than good. Instead, he says the better alternative would be to cool the harsh rhetoric and practice "prayerful Christian dialogue" where we can listen respectfully and disagree agreeably. That's the right way for those to struggle with it to tackle this issue, and doing that might actually give them the space to discern correctly.

His point wasn't to say where he stands on gay sex. That wasn't the reason he wrote it. The issue is that the pastors who really struggle with this problem have no space to struggle in, and he thinks it would be helpful and right that they have that space. Making that argument was the point of his article.

If you disagree with that whole idea of giving pastors space, great. But pulling Revelation 3:16 on him because he doesn't give an answer to a question he wasn't trying to answer seems to me to be criticizing him for not doing something he didn't set out to do in the first place. It's missing the point.

[Kevin Bussey]

Keith,

Thanks for the response. I agree with the 2 points you made. I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood what he was saying. You say it better than he does. Thanks.

KB

[Kgreg]

Keith,

While these struggling pastors struggle with issues of what is sin and what is not sin, what do you think homosexuals should do? Continue to live as they are until these struggling pastors cease to struggle and can then give them the green light to go ahead with thier behavior or the struggling pastors determine that these homosexuals are in a state of eternal damnation and need to repent?

Hope nobody dies during the struggle.

[Keith]

Kevin, thanks. McLaren's not exactly the clearest writer, for whatever reason. I think part of it is so he can be provocative and get people talking--for better or worse.

Kgreg, the whole notion of these struggling pastors means that they're not sure how to answer that question yet. However, even without an answer on gay sex, I think any pastor could witness of our hope of Jesus Christ to anyone. I trust that the Holy Spirit can work toward our salvation whether or not we have an answer on every doctrinal or ethical issue.

[Kgreg]

Keith, you say: "the whole notion of these struggling pastors means that they're not sure how to answer that question yet."

This is actually the central issue in all this, and also what is terribly, terribly frightening. Brian McLaren's unclear writings or Mark Driscoll's mean-spirited rants are a matter of literary style and manners. The issue of Jesus, salvation and repentance is considerably important, and it is the inability of too many pastors today to see what is far outside of our Father's will for us.

I'm not so sure that "any pastor" can witness our of our hope in Jesus without an answer on the issue that is far more important than doctrine and ethics: The issue of sin and repenting from it.

As wishy-washy as so many pastors are today on profound issues that should be clear, we have no choice but to trust the Holy Spirit. We certainly can't depend some pastors to preach the truth.

[Joel Maners]

I loved McLaren's books but I wish he would take Paul's advice in Romans 14:6, "be fully convinced in your own mind." You may change your mind or hold a weak opinion, but yo have to start somewhere. Not taking a stance is a sure way to end a discussion. Taking away disagreement is like taking the tires off a car. You just spin your wheels all day and never go anywhere.

[Paul]

I hope no one missed what McLaren said in his response about his desired title for the original piece. I agree with Keith that McLaren's point wasn't whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. I also don't think it is about giving space to pastors on the right and left and in-between to figure out what they believe. It is about being pastoral to homosexuals. I think that addresses the concerns of Kgreg. IOW, if you believe homosexuality is a black-and-white issue that is settled what do you do with that now? Or, more particularly, how do you minister to homosexuals (be pastoral towards them) in light of that.

I think it's pretty clear that much of the public rhetoric that comes out of the religious community (from both ends of the spectrum) is not pastoral. When "Christians" from Kansas show up in Jenks, Oklahoma to picket the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq with plackards saying that God killed their boy because the US puts up with homosexuality I think someone like McLaren is right ot call us to examine how we respond. No doubt there aren't any of those wingnuts here. No doubt that is an extreme (perhaps the extreme) example. But just because our response may be toned down a little by comparison doesn't mean that we wouldn't benefit from an examination of our own responses with the question: "Is it pastoral?"

That seems to me to be what McLaren is calling for.