A portion of Brian McLaren’s account of an encounter from a couple who visited his church and asked about the policy regarding homosexuality:
“. . . the young woman explained, ‘This is the first time my fiancé and I have ever actually attended a Christian service, since we were both raised agnostic.’ So I supposed they were like most unchurched young adults I meet, who wouldn’t want to be part of an anti-homosexual organization any more than they’d want to be part of a racist or terrorist organization.”
McLaren goes on to explain why he cannot give straight and negative answers to questions about homosexuality. Here are some of my concerns:
Notice what is going on here. Racism and terrorism are associated (if not equated) with the loving revelation of God that homosexual behavior is opposed to God’s will, bad for those who practice it, and detrimental to others who might follow their example. From McLaren’s point of view, it seems, Christians are rightly anti-racism and anti-terrorism but not rightly anti-homosexual behavior. Why not? Why, according to McLaren’s reasoning should we not bend over backwards to be sensitive to the views of racists and terrorists? If McLaren would have similar trouble giving straightforward and negative answers regarding a Christian church’s policy on racism or terrorism, then we could congratulate him for being consistent and also note that he is consistently nuts.
McLaren believes racism and terrorism are wrong. Good for him. The people of Israel and followers of Christ (and by the way, the vast majority of the human race) in virtually every spot on the globe, for virtually the whole of history, believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, aberrant behavior, harmful for those who practice it and for others who might follow their example.
Could it be that McLaren’s blindness to his inconsistency stems from his default awareness that “nowadays, all morally sane folk know intuitively that racism and terrorism are repugnant and evil?” (though some on the anti-semitic and anti-American left today even make bizarre apologies for terroists [e.g., Ward Churchill!]
Could it be that the source of McLaren’s hesitance and ambiguity where homosexuality is concerned is simply that the politically-correct cultural norm now rewards such equivocation regarding and even rejection of traditional and Biblical views on the subject?
And does not McLaren’s hem-hawing on homosexuality highlight the crucial difference between McLaren’s quest for culturally relevant forms of Christianity and Mark Driscoll’s similar quest? Could it be that, fundamentally, McLaren’s touchstone is culture while Driscoll’s is the Bible?
I am asking.
16 responses so far ↓
Matt Christenot // Aug 15, 2007 at 9:55 am
Dr. DeVine,
In the past few months I’ve read two other emerging leaders on this topic, one was John Burke and the other was Dan Kimball. They are both conservative on the issue of homosexuality and encourage homosexuals who are Christ followers (or Christians who struggle with same sex attraction) to practice abstinence. It seems as though people are allowed into much of the life of the church (practical service, home groups) but not allowed to take on key leadership positions. Do you know how Driscoll handles this issue practically in his church?
Gordon Schultz // Aug 15, 2007 at 11:14 am
I think there’s a mistake in thinking here. It seems to me that you have made some accusations that are too broad to be defended, and therefore, not contributing to the open discussion of this issue you apparently promote.
Specifically, the charge that McLaren is more concerned with being “politically correct” because his authority is “culture” as opposed to the Bible, I find to be less than intellectually honest. Instead of examining McLaren’s perspective, it seems to me, that you are trying to make debator’s points and trivialize a fellow-Christian. You have decided the motives and the theological ground of someone on the basis of an anecdote. It is similar to lifting Paul’s or Jesus’s words out of context and saying, “Well, this guy is clearly trying to undermine God’s revelation given in Scripture,” the accusation the Pharisees made against Jesus, and the Judaizers from James’s party against Paul.
There is also a false equivalence set up between terrorists, etc. and those opposed to homosexuality. You move very swiftly, without justification, as far as I can tell, from a practical judgement that occurs in the daily life of a pastor to the supposed intellectual foundation of that judgement. It is a logical fallacy to go from a “conclusion” to an argument back up the stream of possible premises that warrant the conclusion and select one and say “This is your intellectual foundation.”
Let me give an example from Scripture. Paul writes that it his practice in the churches not to allow the women to speak, presumably in worship or teaching occasions. It is a fallacy (although done all the time) to infer by that statement that “Paul has a low view of women” or “Paul believes God relates to woman only or primarily through their husbands” or any number of claims about Paul’s attitudes toward or theological understanding of women. Such charges are made frequently by feminists, and I believe they are to be rejected because they are based on a logical fallacy, and thereby misinterpret Paul. I believe you have done something similar with McLaren.
You have taken a judgment out of context of a working pastor trying to be faithful to Scripture and sensistive to the leading of God’s Spirit in a thorny atmosphere and used it to ridicule him. There is nothing whatsoever in his article that would lend any support to the charge that he is more concerned with political correctness than he is with the Gospel. That is a calumny on the body of Christ. Underlying McLaren’s article is a deep sensitivity to the leading of God’s Spirit, an awareness of the terrible confusion caused by bigots on both sides of the debate, and an unwillingness to make a pronouncement that would lump him in with either of those polarized sides, and drive away a seeking couple that may have been brought to that place by the leading of God..
Some people when they see a pastor’s heart at work only see the pastor’s failure to “throw the first stone,” and judge thereby that “Here is one more failure to uphold God’s law.”
McLaren nowhere equates people who oppose homosexuality with terrorists. Nowhere does he say or imply that anyone “should bend over backwards be sensitive to the views of racists and terrorists.” The equation is made by you, not by McLaren. You say that McLaren believes that “Racism and terrorism are associated (if not equated) with the loving revelation of God that homosexual behavior is opposed to God’s will. . . .” Why do you misrepresent his view? You use rhetorical tricks that we teach students in English class to avoid, because they are deceitful attempts to destroy an opponent without engaging the opponent’s arguments.
When McLaren mentions terrorists, he is trying to understand where this agnostic couple is coming from. And he uses the example of terrorist organizations not to equate those who oppose homosexuality in their attempt to interpret Scripture faithfully, but to recognize that there are organizations that are less concerned with God’s love and more filled with hate. He is comparing hateful organizations, NOT equating those who oppose homosexuality on Christian grounds with terrorists. The test for this judgement is to ask, “Does McLaren elsewhere in his article speak of people who oppose homosexuality on Bblical grounds, and if he does, does he equate them with terrorists?”
The answer is in the article. McLaren speaks of those who oppose homosexuality because they believe that God forbids it with respect, and possibly includes himself among them. His “crime” is that he looks at this couple with love and compassion and doesn’t “bend over backward” to follow the dictates of a pagan culture as you accuse him of doing. He says that there is so much hate on this subject from all sides that his pastoral judgement is not to trumpet his interpretation of Law to this questioning couple. Instead he acknowledges that he is not as certain of the Law and its applicability in every case as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time and ours is.
Like Jesus, and unlike the Pharisees, McLaren starts with the persons before him and sees them through the eyes of God’s love. The Pharisees always start with the Law and miss entirely the person. You attack a pastor attempting to be faithful in his calling by assuming that compassion is the enemy of the Law. I’m guessing that McLaren would say, with Jesus, that compassion is not the enemy of the Law, but the source of its new and decisive interpretation. The Law as seen through Jesus eyes is very different and plays a very different role than it does in the eyes of the Pharisees. The difference is God’s love. A love, by the way, that would be cautious before calling a pastor trying to be faithful “nuts,” as you do. You may call that political correctness, but you do so at the risk of calling good evil.
It seems to me that you own an apology to a brother in Christ. If you don’t think he’s a brother in Christ than may one assume that your theology allows you to demean and destroy with deceitful misrepresentation a person who is not a Christian? If you think, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that he is a tool of Satan who has deceitfully infiltrated the body of Christ to lead the unsuspecting to hell, where do you draw the line as you debate those with whom you disagree? History is littered with the assurance of those who knew without doubt that their understanding of God’s will for the world was correct, condemning those who disagreed. One need only read the sermons of pastors who knew that God intended the races to be separate. Such sermons filled (and still fill) the air and minds in this country, as well as South Africa. Martin Luther King and Bishop Desmond Tutu were argued to be agents of Satan with all the certainty that you have exhibited in your unjustified, unchristian and intellectually dishonest attack on Pastor McLaren.
Gordon Schultz // Aug 15, 2007 at 11:21 am
By the way, I do not know Pastor McLaren and only read his article through the link that you provided.
Dr. Mark DeVine // Aug 15, 2007 at 11:56 am
Gordon
Notice that I am raising questions in my post much more that I am drawing conclusions. I do appreciate your offer of another way to understand McLaren’s use of terroists and racists. I do not find it convincing however.
I do hold out the hope that McLaren’s long predictable genuflexion to polittically correct views is unwitting. I am confident that the clear reading of biblical teaching on homosexual behavior by church for over two millenia is a more faithful guide to christian truth than what either McLaren or I ever might think the Holy Spirit led us to believe in opposition to that weighty exegetical history. Tradition does not determine interpretation where scripture is concerned ( I am an unashamed Protestant!), but historically and globally established tradition does shift the burden to those who would contradict its guidance.
My concerns about McLaren may be unfounded but I can assure you they are not hasty.
Much of your defense of McLaren must be stimulated by folks much more anti-McLaren than I am. McLaren is often praised for being so provocative. I have noticed that when folks to McLaren’s right raise provocative questions, they usually have the honor of being called Pharisees.
As far as I know McLaren has not been a working pastor for many years. I one the other hand, am a working pastor if that counts for anything.
I find that McLaren and McLaren-defeners get huge mileage out of the Pharisaism charge whenever his views are questioned.
I am raising questions. That’s all. Let’s all stay calm.
bbaltrus // Aug 15, 2007 at 12:03 pm
AMEN Brother Schultz. This practical response by Brian McLaren to a real life issue that he has faced more than one time is exactly what the body of Christ needs.
This article came out several months ago, and I remember reading it at the time and commenting it was those exact sentiments that the couple had that keep many of my friends from becoming committed followers of Jesus Christ.
I believe in the Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. This includes the belief that it is not my position to judge, but to allow a person to become familiar with all of the parts of the Trinity. This includes the holy spirit, which will guide a person and answer their individual questions about homosexuality.
Ariel // Aug 15, 2007 at 2:49 pm
“Could it be that, fundamentally, McLaren’s touchstone is culture while Driscoll’s is the Bible?
I am asking. ”
Yes.
I guess I shouldn’t presume to know the intricacies of McLaren’s thought processes (except to note that there must be a lot of asterisks and ellipses involved). But when I’ve “checked in” on his writing and speaking lately, the thought I had was, “This guy’s theology is being wagged by the proverbial ‘tail’ of culture.”
At least to all appearances.
Jimmy Snowden // Aug 15, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Dr. Devine,
Thank you for your thought provoking post. Just some thoughts in regard to the post and comments: The same Jesus who said, “judge not lest you be judged” (Matt 7) also said, “you will know them by their fruits” (Matt 7), and “if you love me you will keep my commandments” (John 14). No, we are not to judge others with a critical spirit, however we must not confuse judging and simple agreement with the word of God. God does not command us to believe what He says about homosexuality and then turn around and spank us for judging when all we actually did was believe and affirm what He has said. Chrisitanity ought to be ashamed for how she has shamefully treated homosexuals, however the way we should repent of this is not by twisting what Holy Scripture says about homosexuality. I in no way want to in anyway pretend that Christianity is faultless in regard to her approach to homosexuals, but we must use scripture, rather than culture, as our guide when it comes to our dealings with the world.
Matt McCoy // Aug 15, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Hello Dr. Divine,
This is Matt McCoy, one of your former students and graduate of Midwestern. I hope I could jump in and give some thoughts on your ongoing and very helpful discussion regarding the emerging/emergent conversation. I am pretty isolated out here in California so any feedback would be much appreciated. My wife, daughter and I have been living in the San Francisco Bay Area for two years now. I currently do ministry work as a chaplain for Stanford Hospital and Mission Hospice. On a trip to Seattle to visit family last weekend, with interest in the emergent/emerging conversation going on in the SBC, I attended Mars Hill Church on Sunday. What I saw was what I see at every conservative church I’ve ever attended, that is, the worship of God and preaching of a message from the bible. It was just packaged a little differently. No, it wasn’t expository preaching like I prefer, neither was the message very deep but it was biblical focused and challenging. The music was loud, even for a generation Xer, but it appeared God and Christ centered. While I continue to cringe at some in the emerging/emergent church who appear to back away from propositional truth and lower social standards within the church my experience at Mars Hill caused me to reflect on my expectations of humanity and those doing church. Frankly, my experience at Mars Hill also caused me to be a little emotional.
I became emotional due to the simple fact that I saw young urban people in church, hearing the bible taught and worshiping God. Why the emotion? It probably had to do with what we have experienced while living out here in the liberal triangle that is San Francisco, Stanford and Berkeley. For two years now we have been exposed, professionally and socially, to a vast wilderness of souls content in their paganism, secularism, pluralism, self-worship and apathy which characterizes those in the Bay Area who stay away from the Christian church. In fact, between 1-4% of the million and half living on the San Francisco Peninsula go to church and judging by the liberal nature of those preaching in Bay Area churches only a few of this 1-4% are hearing a message from the bible. The emotion I felt came from seeing young urban people, that is, west coast city folk, motivated enough to come through the doors of Mars Hill and hear teaching from the bible, be subjected to the teaching of a pastor who passionately pleaded with his listeners to act biblically, and be lead to worship the Lord through contemporary music.
Before moving out to the Bay Area, I grew up and was educated in Missouri where churches abound and may have taken for granted the simple act of human humility and the basic Christian duty of attending church. I assumed those in ministry with the “if we can just get them in church” mindset suffered from too low of expectations and their methods for “tricking people” (as I cynically called it) to attend church as shallow and unbiblical. It pains me greatly to think my expectations of urban humanity and churches are so low now that I rejoice at the sight of people just walking into a church. Those serving in ministry, especially those in urban areas, may understand better this joy. But this appears to be where we are at out here, that is, taking joy in basic Christian duties. I guess I am finding great joy in seeing people attend church because in my current geographical location I now see so few doing it and I know that when someone decides to attend they are willing to subject themselves to something other than themselves. For a west coast liberal minded urbanite to subject themselves to anything other then their own self-worship and fears of organized religion is, to me, really substantial. For young west coast urbanites it doesn’t appear to be about Calvinism verse Arminianism but relevant verse irrelevant, safe community and hope. Also, the argument I often used against methods that target church attendance was “ok, now you have a mega church full of unsaved and spiritual immature people, what does that prove” doesn’t necessary apply in urban areas because church attendance here appears more meaningful then I once thought. It is partly more meaningful because it is so rare and partly because it is so opposite to personal autonomy held so high out here. My hope is that church attendance is a start toward what we desperately need in our churches today: long term healthy spiritual growth, both individual and corporately, toward Christian maturity.
Looking at Mars Hill Church I can’t say from just visiting it one time whether it is what I would call a solid church or that the visit swayed me either way in the emergent/emerging conversation. I did walk away from Mars Hill seeing the most unlikely people going church, worship God and be taught from the bible…young west coast urbanites. Also, while I still feel that many modern day church planting/growth models and methods are shallow I saw something this past Sunday that has encouraged me to be more sympathetic to ways I am inclined to be cynical towards and reject. From my Mars Hill experience and from living in the Bay Area I will continue to reevaluate my expectations of church methods and will value more the ideas coming from those doing church who want to dress differently that which surrounds basic church functions of preaching the bible and worshiping God. While many of you are bantering over Calvinism, a subject I enjoy and feel is very important, others are struggling over the subject of the almost extinct urban church. I believe what I saw at Mars Hill and became emotional about was something positive, directed toward and more relevant to the latter. Thanks.
Ben // Aug 15, 2007 at 10:10 pm
It seems that a nerve has been hit.
I would first like to say that as questions are raised people ought be reminded that answers are being sought.
Secondly, bravo for asking questions that demand answers. If the life style and actions of individuals does not square with the Bible then on which side should Christians reside? On the side of the “cultural irrelevant” Bible, or on the side of the “cultural relevant” opposing behavior? If the Bible does not square with culture it only seeks, nay begs for us to respond like the tax collector in Luke 18 pleading and begging for mercy on our souls. In this lesson both the Pharisee and the tax collector are wrong one is just willing to admit it. All that appears to be happening is that some of us realize we are wrong from the beginning and some will not recognize it. Homosexuality is not the chief sin, it is among the multitude of sins the God of the scripture is at war with, alongside terrorism and racism. Oh yes I said war. If it is not war then why does Christ come to die? God it would seem is delivering us from the raging sea of iniquity, and to say that that which the Bible calls sinful is not is to cheapen the deliverance. I say that there are some that are near sighted, trying to glamorize a life style that is blatantly opposed to scripture in an effort to avoid offense is deceptive. Maybe some of us ought ask forgiveness of God first before we instruct others to do so. We are all condemned. If we refuse the work of a Holy God to deliver us each and everyone what we have is culturally relevant condemnation. Finally, if some one would cheapen deliverance should we not pause, contemplate, and ask questions that demand answers. I say yes. It is an indictment not to ask.
Charles Churchill // Aug 16, 2007 at 8:25 am
While slightly a different subject, this sort of topic came up often on Jesus Creed back in the day when I would frequent the site. In particular, a practicing lesbian who identified herself as a Christian asked the following question:
The answer to her question should not come as a shock to anyone familiar with scripture. We cannot judge the heart, we cannot weigh the soul of man. All we can do is deal with outward signs, and scripture tells us about these: adultery, backbiting, railing, homosexuality, failing to provide for one’s family (wife, children, widowed mother, etc), stealing, murder, etc. These are the outward signs of those inward things, and as such are the very things that we must deal with (and this part is key) among the brethren.
If someone who is a homosexual wants to attend your services, let them. If they want to ask questions, answer them. But don’t let claim to be saved and join the church unless there is repentance. If someone is already a member and found to be in such sin, don’t let them fool themselves into believing that they can live in this sin and claim to be a part of the body of Christ. That is one of the things that the church is to defend: the purity of the Bride of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mark Richardson // Aug 16, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Gordon, Gordon, Gordan, and Bbaltrus!
Is it really “loving” and “practical” to sell out the truth, when the eternal state of precious souls are at stake, no matter how sophisticated, cosmopolitan, altruistic, or “pastoral” the veneer?
Isn’t it odd to claim a leading of the Holy Spirit while conventiently ducking the Holy Spirit’s clearly breathed-out words on homosexuality?
Is it really loving to deny the truth under the garb of being loving?
Isn’t it ridiculous to elevate being “pastoral” above the truth or being honest?
P.S. By the way - I’m a fellow pastor who struggles with theses ministry issues as well. God graciously sent a minister to me, a man with gender identity issues and homosexual tendencies. I’m not not some right-winged red-headed bigot. And I saw God set that man free and bring wholeness to his heart and sexuality - through speaking God’s Word in love - not ducking the obvious.
Brad // Aug 21, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Dr. Devine
“Could it be that, fundamentally, McLaren’s touchstone is culture while Driscoll’s is the Bible?”
I think you hit it on the head here. Driscoll is always preaching to his church to be as “counter-cultural” as the church has been documented to be throughout scripture.
One of the recurring themes I have found in discussions on topics like Homosexuality, is that all too often people are identified by their sin. Homosexuals center their very identity on their homosexual behavior, and Christians often judge their identity based on their behavior. The err seems to be on both sides of this debate.
I can’t help thinking that this argument would be solved with the pastoral care, humility, and love exemplified in a statement along the following lines:
“Homosexuals are people created in the image of God. They are every bit as worthy and deserving of love and respect as you or I. God has told us through scripture that homosexuality is a sin, in the same way that selfishness, gossip, drunkenness and adultery are. Thus we are all in need of Jesus, so what foundation do we have to judge them AS A PERSON?”
Homosexuals sin. I sin. And we all need Jesus. Affirming their identity as image bearers of God while standing firm on biblical sin can be loving and positive. This is not skirting the issue, but rooting our understanding of sin in God’s love for us (as you have said above).
McClaren seems to not make the effort and this, but while Driscoll may lack tact once in a while, I am confident he would agree with this.
Thanks for the excellent topic. This is a challenge that all Christians will increasingly face as a pluralistic and relativist culture emphasizes that our identity is derived from our lifestyle (among other things).
justin mclawson // Sep 9, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Also, worthy of note is that McClaren particpated in a baptism service with Jay Bakker (son of Jim — Jay, who endorses homosexuality as a legitimate option for a faithful Christian) at this church last summer. http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/
There used to be pictures up of McClaren and Baker baptizing confessing lesbians, but I’m sure they had them taken down so as not to lose market share in the evangelical world. I saw the pictures myself as did my wife and others who viewed the site last summer.
Also, worthy of note, Doug Pagitt responded YES to Driscoll’s question about whether homosexuality was a God-honoring behavior at the “Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church” tour. Audio will soon be up at resurgence.
Terry // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:26 am
I would like to comment on Mr. Churchill’s post above regarding the equality of all sins. I have also been struck by a quote from Billy Graham when asked if homosexuality was a sin. His answer was (paraphrased from memory) that yes, it is a sin; however, pride is also a sin, as are greed and lying, and we should not be placing a particular emphasis on homosexuality being “worse.”
However, the difference is in the reaction to these sins. I don’t recall hearing an admitted liar stating that “I feel that God is leading us in a new direction, to be more accepting of liars.” There hasn’t been serious debate over whether or not God’s view on greed has changed since the Bible was written. While the sins themselves may be equal to God, his flock(s) has/have somehow decided that it was OK to disagree with God on this one. We do that not only to our own peril, but to the peril of our children and our society.
Thomas // Dec 28, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Generally speaking, I do not spend too much time surfing the internet and reading posts, however, this one concerning the treatment of homosexuality caught my eye. There is a tremendous temptation, particularly today, to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ appealing to all people. As tempting as large congregations and full to overflowing offering plates are it is nevertheless, a slippery slope, spiritually speaking, to amend biblical truth in order to fit our own sensibilities.
I remember I was teaching an Adult Sunday School class when an older gentlemen who was attending said something very interesting. His statement was that the Christian life was simultaneously easy and hard. The easy part was the love that we enjoy in the good graces of God as his child. The difficulty is our place within the world.
in the light of his insight, we need to remember what Christ said to his disciples that when we are hated we should remember that the world hated him first ( John 15:18).
Our role as Christians in the world is as emissaries of light that seek to dispel darkness. the darkness of the world is sin, which homosexuality is a part of. The cure for this darkness is the light of Christ, which we as his children must represent.
No man, certainly no pastor is any use to anyone without solid principles even though they may be unpopular and politically incorrect.
These convictions must come from the scriptures, which illuminate to us the mind of God in his totality Father,Son and Holy Spirit. I am very sympathetic personally to the plight of the homosexual vis-a-vis the biblical precept and the company in which they are placed such as in I Corinthians 6:9. This issue along with others that pertain to the failings of the flesh must always be addressed sensitively but clearly, otherwise we run the risk of watering down the truth in order to please men.
The world today need truth and it needs truth to be reflected in us. Essentially we as Christians represent the only source of truth that has the power to save for eternity. Therefore, let us strive to reflect that truth as God has revealed it to us, not as we would like it to be
Dave // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Christians have obviously thrown out much of the OT. Why can’t you guys just throw out the parts about homosexuality and turn it back into the non-issue that it should be. Why should someone’s sexual orientation have anything to do with spirituality aside from some dubious rants in 2000+ year old scriptures?
Leave a Comment