One of the truly life-changing things I've learned in the last two or three years of my ministry is that my tendency to scold sinners rather than speak and act redemptively (hard to believe I would approach culture like that as an SBC'r, isn't it) is the wrong approach. As someone once said, it's hard to get someone to smell a rose right after you've cut the nose off their face. And scolding is not the God-ordained means by which sinners will realize they are sinners and run to Christ. The only people Jesus would scold are religious leaders bent on torquing God's ways.
With this I have realized how important it is for the church to stop saying they "love the sinner" without lifting a finger to express love to them. This is particularly true with homosexuals, and we as the Church need to repent of how we have at times scolded them and refused to love them actively. (There are many out there who aren't guilty of this and have been in gracious ministry to homosexuals, but I don't see these courageous saints as the norm.)
And while I desire this change in evangelicalism and my own life, it appears that Brian McLaren has failed to even comprehend what to do now.
Read McLaren's "pastoral response" on the issue of homosexuality, which quite honestly is hardly pastoral and not much of a response. I realize that those who have needed grace from Christians haven't received it. I realize that too quickly answering the "homosexual question" (which is, What does your church think about homosexuality?) sometimes can close the door to answering more important questions first, like Who is Jesus?
But what about conviction? What about Peter (Acts 2) preaching to the crowds and saying YOU crucified this Jesus, and they were cut to the heart and responded, What shall we do? Maybe many homosexuals aren't asking What shall we do? because they aren't cut to the heart. And maybe they aren't cut to the heart because we have equated being non-committal with being "pastoral."
The most pastoral thing we can do for someone who run with down the avenue of homosexuality (just like any sin) is help them be cut to the heart in a God-intended way, through the truth of their sin in comparison with truth of God's law.
McLaren and I have similar issues with evangelicalism. We are both concerned to 'cut' sinners through our own "rightness" which will tend to run homosexuals off and keep them from hearing about grace. But I cannot go down McLaren's path of choosing to not know the answer to the "homosexual question." Being pastoral in our responses, and getting to more important questions is a great and important thing, but there is no excuse for not even knowing the answer to the "homosexual question." McLaren said...
Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.
I find no space for nuanced arguments on homosexuality. In Scripture I find direct answers with direct implications for ministry, and our pastoral job is to realize where we have failed to speak and act with love toward those who need to be cut to the heart deep enough to see the hole that only the cross can fill.
McLaren then says...
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.
I'm disturbed that McLaren doesn't think that thousands of years since the destruction of cities and the teachings of Jesus and Paul and others isn't enough, and that maybe 5 more will do it. If not, let's go 5 more.
Something is terribly wrong with McLaren's lack of clarity on what Scripture teaches. The answer for "emerging leaders" is not a moratorium on deciding, but boldness to take the Scriptures at face value and to approach sinners with a firm kindness that will lead them to repentance.
_____
Worth checking out on the issue:
Doug Wilson's response to McLaren
Tom Ascol's discussion with a homosexual radio host
Very good words Steve. It's interesting how every group has its reactionary leaders/members who often overcompensate for error creating a different problem.
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 01/25/2006 at 11:59 AM
It has been interesting that in my life these issues have been popping up all around me over the last 2-3 months. I am trying to attune myself to think that it might actually be God trying to teach me in times like these but I haven't quite figured out what he might be teaching me yet.
Anyway, that said...One of the guys I work with in our ministry has been attending the gay and lesbian association on our campus. He deeply affected by the issues of homosexuality and wants to help people find wholeness in Jesus. So he started going and has made some cool friendships. In fact they invited him to go to a bar tomorrow to hang out and stuff. They know he is a Christian and have even read an article where he shared his story of coming to faith, yet they want to be around him.
In my mind this guy is doing some truly amazing things by way of befriending people that many don't want to be around and/or don't know how to be around. I'm excited to see what God will do as these friendships continue for him.
Posted by: jason | 01/25/2006 at 12:32 PM
While I don't deny that there are some issues that are up in the air, homosexuality does not appear to be one of them. Those who favor the inclusion and acceptance of homosexuality into the church often try to say that Paul's writings are unclear on the matter (what is Paul saying in Romans 1 anyway!), and that Jesus never spoke directly to the issue.
One scripture that is often overlooked is Matthew 19 where Jesus is speaking about divorce. He lays out the reason why we have marriage in the first place. It's because God created male and female and called them human. According to Jesus, sexual identity and expression is part of being human. The ultimate expression of that is realized in marriage. How marriage could be biblically justified between to members of the same sex is beyond Jesus' thinking on the matter.
Homosexual advocates say that since we cannot know what Paul meant in Romans 1, we can't say anything definative on the issue. Is there NOTHING that is not up for grabs since Paul is not here to explain himself?
Posted by: Joel Maners | 01/25/2006 at 02:04 PM
I'm tending to agree with you Steve. 5 or 6 years ago, to me when McLaren was saying things like "What really breaks my heart about that question is that no matter how I answer it. I'm going to hurt some people I care about" that was refreshing... In the midst of all the fundavangelical froth on the issue, to actually hear someone consider the people involved on both sides was a good lesson for me, and one I hadn't really heard presented very often.
But now, 5 or 6 years later, at the Generous Orthodoxy conference, Brian is suggesting the moratorium on speaking and it seems less refreshing and more... giving up.
Encourage us to speak carefully.
Encourage us to speak the truth in love.
Encourage us to wrestle openly with the issue and even to listen to what the "other side" is saying.
But don't tell us to shut up on one of the most contentious issues of the day.
That having been said, while I don't think Brian hits it here, I think there's a way to be pastoral and for a church community to actually speak the truth in love on this issue in a way in which (in the words of Stan Grenz) homosexuals feel welcomed to find Jesus in our community, but not affirmed in same sex sexual relationships.
I love and respect Brian (even though I think he's got this one wrong), and I believe in the concept of Generous Orthodoxy. I just want equal parts orthodoxy with the generosity.
Posted by: bob hyatt | 01/25/2006 at 02:20 PM
Joel, thanks for bringing up that scripture about Jesus and divorce. Which begs another question: why are Christians so unbelievably lax on the issue of divorce yet so condemning about homosexuality?
Posted by: Tom Hinkle | 01/25/2006 at 02:24 PM
Could ONE pastoral approach be to teach biblical sexuality (in terms of gender identity - male and female, acceptance and appreciation of same) to children and to parents? Why should a child learn more from toilet grafitti than from Scripture? Why not teach them (and help their parents to do so as well) about normal changes in their body and emotions prior to those changes occuring?
I appreciate all the efforts people make to preserve virginity until marriage. But one can take all the "pledges" and still be as dumb as a bag of hammers about male and female sexuality. And I suppose for me I just do not have confidence in those approaches.
God made them male and female, and said it was very good. A great, pious phrase is "for the glory of God". But what does it mean; how does it affect who I am, and how and why should I live my life for that end?
I think helping someone enter that journey will preserve virginity more than a thousand youth conferences with their invitations and pledges.
Shepherds tend sheep. Paul's words in Gal. 4:19 seem pastoral to me: "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...".
Posted by: T | 01/25/2006 at 02:38 PM
I wonder if they were cut to the quick, not so much because of Peter's "confrontational" comments but because of the simplicity of the gospel message and its truth that he shared to them and that they were oh too familiar with the facts?
We can call sin, "sin"; Christ definitely wasn't afraid to do that. But He also was just as fearless about pouring out mercy and compassion as well.
I guess it always comes back to balance.
Posted by: Marcguyver | 01/25/2006 at 02:58 PM
Steve,
I feel your struggle. It was interesting to hear Dr. Mohler say on Larry King the other night that "conservative Christians have learned a lot in recent years that has corrected some of our thinking and some of the ways we've been speaking." Whether we look at our history as a denomination, or as Christians in general, or as individuals, we are embarrassed by some things we've said and done. But McLaren doesn't say be silent; be quiet; say nothing. He says "practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably." And I think his encouragement to find out what's behind the question is good advice.
So something is being said. What he thinks we should say...your guess is as good as mine. And that's Brian McLaren...very long on observations, very short on answers. I'm not one of his defenders. I don't look to Brian for answers. But sometimes he asks good questions. Sometimes he points out our inconsistencies. Perhaps his suggested moratorium has something to do with just preaching to the converted instead of dialoguing with individuals, like Jesus did with the woman at the well, or Zaccheus, or even going into the homes of the Pharisees.
Like you say Steve, we've got to make sure we don't let the thorns keep people from smelling the rose. (By the way, who came up with that? Joe? :o) )
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, et al found a way to speak the truth in love. We have to keep seeking to be like our Master, full of grace and truth. And quite frankly, I think Jesus will accomplish what he wants to through us if we let love, grace, and truth, both keep us in check and make us as a bold as a lion. Maybe Jesus' words to the adulterous woman can guide us: neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.
Posted by: Steve W | 01/25/2006 at 03:00 PM
It seesm that the issue isn't with loving "sinners", it seems the issue is loving people. For some reason parts of the church talk alot about sin. I think think is more of a cultural issue than one from God's perspective of even a biblical perspective. There are many scirpture references to many issues one can justify. The church is full of divorce and remarried people. In the evangelical church it is higher than in our culture and this is after "conversion".
It seems when the conversation is intitiated with one who we view as a "sinner" then we are already off on the wrong foot. But the real question is, why focus on 3% of the population when 53% of the church population is divorced and remarried? My gosh, the dominant problem in our culture isn't homosexuality... it is our inability to see people as human beings instead of sinners.
Posted by: rick | 01/25/2006 at 03:02 PM
Well, as one of those who tends to find conservative and liberal theology simply two sides of the same unsatisfying coin, I tend to agree with him. Jesus' approach to loving people and extending grace and mercy was always highly nuanced and individually tailored. Further, it was extended without precondition. Given the nature of this, I no more expect a cookie cutter solution here than I would in any other complicated facet of God's work to transform us. Deciding whether or not a specific act is sinful is just the first and simplest part of the question. The hard part is what should you then do? What best shines Jesus' love into this person's life? And I would suggest that you need to know them, understand the question behind the question, and knowing, love them while listening carefully to the Spirit.
While I find the idea of 5 year moratorium rather silly, the article as a whole makes a good point. I especially liked this:
To far too many Christians these days, on both sides of this and other issues, being "right" seems to be their main goal. And that strikes me as wrong.
Posted by: Scott M | 01/25/2006 at 04:06 PM
I have always blogged hard for Mclaren to be heard. I've also said, many times, that I think Mclaren is- no insult here- a bit of a lightweight, and quite a bit of a creation of Christian publishing and media.
This column really seals the deal for me. I'm sorry, but Mclaren sounds like a college sophomore who just finished his first ethics class with a sharp non-Christian teacher.
The text is clear. OUR text is clear. Clarity has never been an issue here for students of the text. Pastoral application? OK....but we are applying THE TEXT. Not our political views, etc.
I'd say we have seen Mclaren's stock peak as a representative of any kind of centrism. This column puts him in a very familiar place to those of us who have been around the mainline, pro-gay denominations and their scholars.
Posted by: iMonk | 01/25/2006 at 04:42 PM
Sigh. I've never read any of Mclaren's books. I have read a few of the essays and articles he's published. And I watched a few of his sermons where he discussed the emerging church. The tone of this thread, though, makes me feel like I'm being pushed into the role of an apologist for him, something I find disturbing, especially since I know relatively little about his work.
However, from everything I've read and seen, his roots are in the evangelical church subculture. Somewhere along the way, he noticed that the larger culture was shifting, the church wasn't, and it was losing its ability to communicate the gospel in the native terms of the shifting culture. So he set about learning the language and symbols of that culture. And though I've hardly read enough of his stuff to have an authoritative opinion, it strikes me that he's done a pretty amazing job of it, especially for someone with his background. Often, the manner in which he says something or approaches an idea feels natural to me. It's a way I might approach a similar question.
I've read some number of the "liberal" scholars on this issue. And I've read at least as many from the "conservative" camp. And frankly, both strike me as mostly missing the point. They both attempt to reduce it to a simple binary answer with an equal simple application. And it is not. It is incredibly multi-layered and nuanced because it does not deal with an abstract idea. It deals with people somewhere near the core of their identity. And people are always highly nuanced and multi-layered.
Both "sides" of the "debate" pretty much leave out the person. And that's wrong. They both turn the person into the other. Either the other with whom we're OK or the other whom we reject. But always the other. You must know the person, be a friend to the person, demonstrate your love for the person, and trust God to act in the other person's life to transform what needs to be transformed as he does in yours. Within the context of a friendship, you can discuss and share your thoughts and understanding of God and Scripture. Friends do that all time, even when they differ. But you cannot be using that "friendship" to manipulate, coerce, or control.
At any rate, the things Mclaren wrote in this article do not much sound to me like the "liberal" theology I've read. Some of it misses the mark, but much of it makes a lot of sense.
Do I think he's a heavyweight who makes me think? No. I look to people like Scot McKnight for that. But that doesn't mean he isn't worth reading. He often offers a good way to say something or angle to approach a question. I also like Max Lucado, not because he's a theological heavyweight or has perfect theology, but because he's a really good storyteller. And I like stories.
Posted by: Scott M | 01/25/2006 at 05:24 PM
The text is clear. OUR text is clear. Clarity has never been an issue here for students of the text. Pastoral application? OK....but we are applying THE TEXT. Not our political views, etc.
IMonk, while you and I share the same interpretation of the relevant texts, there are many very smart people--committed and serious Christians, no less--who would disagree your statement here. How do I know? Because I'm around them every day, and I have disagreements with them. When I discuss this subject with them, they use the same kind of statements that you're using about the text and argue that it has the same kind of clarity--but they come to opposite conclusions.
I think they're wrong. But they do raise hard questions for me that make me really evaluate how I look at this issue. I think those are the very same questions and arguments that McLaren is hearing as well as those from your side. And, when faced with real people, as Scott M. put it so eloquently above, it may be that the clear hard lines that both sides are wanting him to draw become a lot more fuzzy.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with his approach on this issue in this article. But I think I can understand why he has articulated it like he has, and I think it is more carefully thought out than you're giving him credit for. I also don't think that it's a reflection of the fact that he (a) just flaunts the text because he wants to or (b) is the same thing as "mainline, pro-gay denominations and their scholars." That's putting him in a camp that he expressly says in the article that he doesn't identify with, and I'd like to take him at his word on that.
On a side note, I find it interesting how many people are truly uncomfortable with not having an answer for everything at all times. I think that's the root of a lot of our theological problems, and that might be one point from McLaren's article that we could all learn something from--regardless of what we think about his conclusions on this issue.
Posted by: Keith | 01/25/2006 at 07:50 PM
This has been a worthwhile series of comments, Steve, and I appreciate your getting it rolling.
I will put some cards on the table about Brian. Most of us don't see Brian as a theologian like Grenz, or Franke, or a biblical scholar. Brian is a writer; a leader; an evangelist; and one who has mastered the art of stirring the pot. I can't think of anyone in my lifetime who has been able to touch so many vital and sensitive nerves, and generate so much discussion. Maybe it reflects who I am, but I like this about him. I like to see the discussions.
I think we need to have some more serious conversations about homosexuality, which I'm trying to do on my blog, and I think Brian's stuff will undoubtedly further that end.
For my own take, I'm hoping Brian's next book will be a place where he sets out his theology more clearly in a constructivist manner. But, I've not yet seen a copy.
Posted by: Scot McKnight | 01/25/2006 at 08:13 PM
Keith,
I assure you that I don't have an answer for all things and all times. But I have settled for myself how Jesus felt about this basic issue. What concerns me is what happens when we accomodate the relentless efforts of gay deconstruction of these texts. (And I am in favor of secular civil unions, so don't misjudge me.)
I minister with a PCUSA church. I know the arguments and the rhetoric very well, and I know the emotional, pastoral, "these are our children" arguments.
But Hebrews 13:4 is not a controversial text. The fact that we are all sexual sinners outside of marriage/celebacy is not a real debatable point. I am always ready to hear fresh application, but I think this topic is at a textual end point, and has been for a long time.
Now...how would Jesus treat a homosexual in a loving relationship? I think I have a handle on that one, too (John 8) and it doesn't muddy up the texts for me.
I believe the church is an alternative community that transcends the rhetoric of gay rights advocates and religious right culture warriors. But I believe that community is bound to a kind of love that honors marriage as biblically defined.
Good discussion, Steve. (You pomo devil you.)
Posted by: iMonk | 01/25/2006 at 08:27 PM
Very well stated post Steve. Your clear voice is appreciated
Posted by: Bruce | 01/26/2006 at 08:13 AM
As a pastor with a homosexual father, this column really hits home for me. As a child raised in Southern Baptist life, I understood my dad as someone outside the faith. I was a dualist; he was secular, and I was sacred. As I become more reformed, it seemed like Dad was just one of the unchosen- predestined for Hell. Neither one of these gave me much hope for my father or for our relationship.
I give you the background to say this, McLaren's idea for waiting 5 years, and possibly more waiting after that, is not realistic in the least.
In my relationship with my father, we're constantly interacting in discussion, disagreement, celebration, etc. He doesn't put his homosexuality on pause during any of these moments, it's part of our interaction. If I'm engaged in the life of my father, I am bound to interact with his homosexuality. To put a moratorium on speaking for or against "homosexuality" is to condemn any believer to question-asking only. Some might say that's great, but that's not interaction, it's an interview. More importantly, that's not our call. Scripture [as supported by iMonk above] seems to point toward clarity and directed action, not a moratorium.
Speaking the truth in love is a very difficult thing to do with my father, but if I don't, I'm disobeying God to spare his feelings. I also don't condemn him, we have an honest, open relationship, and he feels comfortable in telling me about his gay lovers, AIDS testing, and political agendas. He can also hear about God, prayer, and the way of the Cross.
I'm not a McLaren-hater. In Bob Hyatt's same spirit, I like him, but he's off here. It's interesting to note that even in his own article, McLaren never finishes the conversation he had with the homosexual couple. I assume he did, but I wonder what was said and what was buried in a moratorium.
Posted by: Drew Caperton | 01/26/2006 at 09:55 AM
While I am not 100% happy with McLaren's response (though not so much that he doesn't lay out the sin card, but that he can fail to offer hope), I am not sure that article alone fairly reflects a stance upon which he can be critiqued. Jesus was clear on what He lived (and died) for, but seemed to get specific about sin largely when referring to the religious community, not the "real sinners".
That being said, Scot McKnight at www.jesuscreed.org has a great series on the subject going.
Peace,
Jamie
Posted by: Jamie Arpin-Ricci | 01/26/2006 at 10:03 AM
As a repentant homosexual, saved by the grace of God via the blood of Jesus, I realize too that there is something terribly wrong with Mclaren's lack of clarity on what Scripture teaches about homosexuality. Unfortunately, it isn't just Mclaren, but a multitude of professing Christians, who, in their efforts at being "pastoral", condone something that is blatanly outside of our Father's will for us.
I witness to homosexuals who often respond with the accusation that I am a "hater", and a "hater" of the worst sort because I used to do what they do, and now I speak against it. I realize they are in darkness, so they see my actions and words as "hateful", when the truth is that what I do is an act of love. If we love someone, in the sense that we care about their well-being, then how can we not speak the truth?
It isn't an act of love, or being "pastoral" to allow someone to continue down the road to destruction, especially when their circumstance is crystal clear to those of us who are in the light, and any Christian who really trusts the Holy Spirit to speak through the Word cannot have any doubt that homosexuality is sin.
We have too often failed in our witness to homosexuals. Threats of hell and condemnation usually only drive homosexuals away from the Gospel, and fuel the rhetoric of the gay activists. It isn't easy witnessing to homosexuals. They are probably the most difficult group to approach with the Gospel, but it is the Gospel that we have with us to share with them. It is the most powerful message of hope, redemption, salvation, joy, life, love and all that is truly good. This is the message God has charged us to take to everyone who doens't know Jesus, including homosexuals, and it is in a spirit of joy, hope and love that we are to convey this message.
There's no place for condemnation by us. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, so we're really in no position to do it either. There's no place ignoring the Holy Spirit's revelation through God's Word. There's no place for ignoring the Holy Spirit's conviction of our wickedness. There's no place for allowing ourselves to be decieved. There's no place for being wishy-washy about sin.
If we trust the Holy Spirit to reveal the Truth in our hearts, there is no lack of clarity.
Posted by: Kgreg | 01/26/2006 at 10:27 AM
Ryken has something to say that is relevant to this discussion. Link
Posted by: Joe Thorn | 01/26/2006 at 10:57 AM
Kgreg, thank you.
Did all of you catch John H's comment over on Out of Ur? "How about a moratoriaum on your lack of clarity? Sign me up for that one."
Well said.
Posted by: steve w | 01/26/2006 at 02:35 PM
i guess i'm just glad that the church is finally REALLY talking about it. which is much further along then we've been over the past coupple of decades.
grace on wisdom on us all.
Posted by: peter magelssen | 01/26/2006 at 05:26 PM
"Something is terribly wrong with McLaren's lack of clarity on what Scripture teaches."
This is a good statement. I like McLaren, but he does make everything so vague that you hardly know what on earth you're to do with the Bible anymore after reading him. Thanks for this blogpost, Steve.
Posted by: jason woolever | 01/27/2006 at 02:43 PM