Scot McKnight in a series of thoughtful and engaging posts on homosexuality comes down with a rather curious position. First, I agree with his understanding of the nature of human being as so many broken and/or distorted images of God and that reconciliation with God leads to the restoration of that image through Jesus. This seems clear enough especially in the writings of Paul as through the Patristics and onward. Second, his understanding of the practice of Jesus as one whose understanding of humanity's need for reconciliation and his act of reaching out to those who need such reconciliation the most by inviting them to his table offers an inclusive vision of Christian mission and practice. For as Paul says in Romans "Christ came for the ungodly" and "whle we were sinners Christ died for us". Third, he is clear that the church ought not exclude anyone at all and practice the same radical inclusivity of Jesus in how the church understands its own reason for being. The boundaries that the church establishes in its purity system should be permeable and flexible to respond to the presence of God's working through it in the same way that Jesus worked to reconcile the world to himself. Thus, there should be no arbitrary boundaries that the church establishes in order to maintain a specific set of propositions and dogmatic assertions which can run counter to the inclusive nature of the table of Jesus that demands nothing of us other than our pledge to seek a new way of living as we "pick up our cross and follow" Jesus. However, when McKnight looks to scripture regarding homosexuality he makes a curious move. Referencing and quoting all of the passages that deal directly or indirectly with same sex relations he makes a few assertions. First, the historical contexts of these various passages clearly has to do with sexual relations of a debased and violent nature and not of a situation that is monogamous and self-giving. This is, of course, an argument leveled against use of these passages as an injunction against homosexuality in general since they have nothing to do with what would be considered a loving relationship of mutual respect and support among persons of same gender. Second, he clarifies that Jesus said nothing of homosexuality, but was very clear about what constitutes a justified relationship between people and God – love your neighbor and love God and all other commandments fall under these two. Third, he argues that scripture clearly singles out same-sex relationships as that which is an example of something that runs counter to the order of God which we can quite reasonably infer from the scriptures was interpreted to be evident in marriages and relationships of those of different genders. To say that the writers and traditions of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures did not understand marriage in this way seems to be a rather dishonest understanding of scripture, its sources, its historical import, and its social contexts. This notion of order runs straight up through Paul and it seems that same sex sexual relations is consistently used as something to offer an example of that which is in dis-order in contrast to the order of God that the law provides. That is to say, same-sex relations seem to be used as an example of how gentiles are distinct from Jews in terms of the law which ratifies the covenant of God with his people. Fourth, he argues that homosexuality is not necessarily a choice. He does not argue this in terms of biological determination (which continues to gain credibility in the scientific community – here is one example article worth a read) but in terms of those social and psychological processes that shape human behavior and knowledge that go largely unnoticed by us. Hence, one does not choose one's gender identity in many cases. Then comes the curious move. First, even if our gender identities are not something that we necessarily choose, the way that we behave in terms of those identities are actions that we choose. We can either have sex with such and such person or not. Nothing in our gender preference determines that choice even if that choice is fundamentally conditioned from the start. Second, it is a theological and moral responsibility to be attentive to the order of God as revealed in scripture and to be faithful to that order. In other words, we cannot ignore those pieces of scripture and of God's revelation and covenant that we not not believe are supportive of our current beliefs and positions on things. Why is this curious? McKnight does not draw out the probabilities here and leaves this in an almost irreconcilable tension for us to sort out. To this end what he has presented is not helpful. This seems to come off sounding far more of a bureaucratic pronouncement rather than constructive engagement. What he does well is cast the issues into sharper relief and dissect the tensions, but leaves the reader mired in the tensions that we already know are there.
- Do not be legalistic and understand scripture as constitutive of a compendium of judicial pronouncements, but observe the order that God has established.
- Invite sinners to the table of God and help them find reconciliation with God to allow God to repair the broken image of God in humankind through "embracing grace", yet at the same time this order of God must be observed and followed in order for that image to be restored in practice.
For what good is a restored image of God by any means, even the resurrection, if one is unsure of how to live in that reconciliation? The order of God as McKnight uses in his hermeneutic is that very guide to make this reality tenable, but he does not quite go there and leaves his position perhaps intentionally ambiguous. But the logic is still there if we apply the test of the pragmatist to it. There is something missing in his discussion of a pragmatic sort. In the end one is not sure how to live what he is discussing here. If order is the primary issue with homosexuality – and here I am referring strictly to homosexual relationships that practice charity, humility, kindness, etc. to one another in mutual upbuilding; not the debased violent sort that provide the contexts of so many scripture passages – then how does one who is homosexual and in such a relationship maintain that order? If my relationship with someone of the same gender actually brings me closer into the mutual love in the being of God that is the perichoresis, am I to retain the order of God in terms of relationships for the purpose of child bearing and rearing between a man and a woman prior to this enriched sense of love? Or is the order of God the very essence of this kind of love that drives the direction of the law and love is what we ought to hold prior to the order of purity that the gender roles in scripture clearly imply? Finally, if this is but one aspect of the order of God's covenant with humanity that we ought to uphold in response to God's grace, what of other prescriptions of the law that function in the same ritualistic manner such as keeping Kosher, not working on the Sabbath which starts on Friday evening, observing the Passover, etc.? McKnight seems to have missed the corpus of Paul's theology to the gentiles and its implications for how non-Jewish Christians ought to understand the relationship between the law, grace, faith, and the cross of Christ. What is the relationship between this understanding of "order" and the law? This at least demands discussion, but alas McKnight leaves us wanting. What McKnight does is double-speak. It seems to pander to both sides of the argument – be inclusive and invite all to the table without reservation, and yet uphold the order of God as revealed in the passages that deal with sex between those of the same gender. It is as unpragmatic as it is improbable. How do we welcome those who are fundamentally and consciously cutting against the grain of the order of God in an inclusive way – in the way of Jesus? The answer is that we need to rethink this order itself. If our own doctrinal and social boundaries ought not act as immutable boundaries to God, it seems that those boundaries through which the revelation of God was witnessed in scripture itself ought neither not be as immutable as McKnight seems to assume ought to be the case here. If the love of God as revealed in the Cross is to be the preeminent guide for Christian action and behavior, then it seems that it ought to dictate how we understand the order of God – even as witnessed in the whole of scripture. Perhaps the Cross is the very order of God revealed. But McKnight fails to take us to this level of reconciliation and leaves the order of God in terms of purity laws in irreconcilable tension with inclusive invitation to the very table of Jesus. Finally, the alternative is to see both the Cross and the Table of Jesus as mutually revelatory as, in Niebuhr's formulation, the intelligible event that renders all other events intelligible. If we see these events as constitutive of the revelation of God's love, then something happens to that order which McKnight assumes does it not? The Cross is what resolves the tension created between the law and God's grace. But McKnight does not relate the Table to the Cross, and that is where his position fails since we cannot actually live it with integrity.
No related posts.
Drew,
Thanks for the post. I too found Scot's post ultimately unhelpful. Essentially he leaves gays in the closet. Choose celibacy or (what's the other option?). We who are straight can find intimacy, but if you're gay, no way. So instead of providing opportunities for long term monogamous loving relationships, we leave them the choice of nothing or clandestine relationships.
Reconciliation makes us new persons, but it doesn't change our essence — as I understand Paul.
Drew,
Thanks for the post. I too found Scot's post ultimately unhelpful. Essentially he leaves gays in the closet. Choose celibacy or (what's the other option?). We who are straight can find intimacy, but if you're gay, no way. So instead of providing opportunities for long term monogamous loving relationships, we leave them the choice of nothing or clandestine relationships.
Reconciliation makes us new persons, but it doesn't change our essence — as I understand Paul.
Drew,
Thanks for this direct, if a little strong in language ("double-speak" is no kind accusation in my book), engagement with my many posts on homosexuality and the church, which are after all posts and not official publications and which were written to generate conversation instead of simply attempts to articulate my own viewpoint.
My view is easy to articulate: it is classically called "welcoming but not affirming." I think this is the pragmatics of Jesus as well (on anyone he thought was living contrary to God's will).
I've read your post now five times, and there are some things you say that I have no clue for understanding. I give one: are you suggesting with your corpus of Paul's theology to the gentiles that, say, Romans is for Gentiles but not Jews? (Is there a "corpus" — body — of Paul's "theology" — do you mean letters since we have no other "theology" by Paul?)
It is, I would argue, easier to have a pragmatics of radical inclusiveness on this issue or one of radical exclusiveness on this issue, than a pragmatics of welcoming but not affirming. The murkiness of the pragmatics stems from the ambiguity, so I would argue, of pastoral ministry to cracked Eikons. My experiences shows that pastoral life dwells often in murky pragmatics.
Well, thanks for your engagement.
Drew,
Thanks for this direct, if a little strong in language ("double-speak" is no kind accusation in my book), engagement with my many posts on homosexuality and the church, which are after all posts and not official publications and which were written to generate conversation instead of simply attempts to articulate my own viewpoint.
My view is easy to articulate: it is classically called "welcoming but not affirming." I think this is the pragmatics of Jesus as well (on anyone he thought was living contrary to God's will).
I've read your post now five times, and there are some things you say that I have no clue for understanding. I give one: are you suggesting with your corpus of Paul's theology to the gentiles that, say, Romans is for Gentiles but not Jews? (Is there a "corpus" — body — of Paul's "theology" — do you mean letters since we have no other "theology" by Paul?)
It is, I would argue, easier to have a pragmatics of radical inclusiveness on this issue or one of radical exclusiveness on this issue, than a pragmatics of welcoming but not affirming. The murkiness of the pragmatics stems from the ambiguity, so I would argue, of pastoral ministry to cracked Eikons. My experiences shows that pastoral life dwells often in murky pragmatics.
Well, thanks for your engagement.
I agree Drew. This is the problem I have with so many like McKnight (who I deeply respect by the way) regarding this issue – they say we need to love homosexuals and not exclude them but then say that their attraction is not God's order BUT THEN don't provide any sort of guidance for what homosexuals are supposed to do. Just as you said Bob – it leaves those with same sex attraction in a sort of spiritual and relational limbo – and that's not even addressing the issue of what those who are already in committed same sex relationships are supposed to do – split up and become celibate?
There really only seems to be one conclusion for Scot and others to come to but they don't seem to want to spell it out.
I agree Drew. This is the problem I have with so many like McKnight (who I deeply respect by the way) regarding this issue – they say we need to love homosexuals and not exclude them but then say that their attraction is not God's order BUT THEN don't provide any sort of guidance for what homosexuals are supposed to do. Just as you said Bob – it leaves those with same sex attraction in a sort of spiritual and relational limbo – and that's not even addressing the issue of what those who are already in committed same sex relationships are supposed to do – split up and become celibate?
There really only seems to be one conclusion for Scot and others to come to but they don't seem to want to spell it out.
Scot,
Thanks for reading. I am glad that you engaged my thoughts and indeed you did generate conversation! Please also excuse the strong language. As with most blogging environments my initial posts are generally not intended to frame debate rules and I would usually not use language of that candor in a formal debate setting. However, I do tend to prefer stronger language that is clear rather than more toned down language that can often obscure things.
To your question on Paul, to say that he does not have a very resonant and clear theology of the Law as it relates to the Cross seems quite clear in his discussion of it in Romans especially in chapters 3 and 5. But perhaps you can elaborate on your contention here. To also say that the relationship between Law and the Cross (namely the central revelation of God's grace to which Paul clearly holds the law realtive)is not formulated in a theology that Paul is putting forward seems to be more of an issue of semantics than of substance. It is not a "systematic" or "dogmatic" theology, but it is a theology nonetheless.
My problem with the language of "welcoming but not affirming" is that is does not seem to have much merit since it makes a firm distinction between the person and the specific sinful behavior. Hence, it is not the desire that is so much a problem (or perhaps it is in this view, but I am assuming here that it is not), but the acting upon that desire or, the specific behavior that is the problem. While we can work this out logically, and I think you have done so as well as could be asked, I do not think this position holds much merit when one tries to live it. This is what sounds like double-speak. I will accept you, but clearly I cannot *really* accept your behavior or probability of behavior does not meet specific conditions.
Perhaps this position would equate homosexual behavior with drug addiction or other behaviors that are clearly denigrating to the human person, but I would venture a guess that you would not make such an equation – all the better for it. Or does homosexuality inherently catalyze or promote the "cracked Eikon" that is human being? This seems to be a rather arbitrary judgment in what are clearly a limited and somewhat ambiguous set of texts that deal specifically or, I think, rather tangentially to the issue of homosexual behavior as it would exist between two loving persons who uphold each other and quite regularly can enhance the relationship the partner has with God.
The problem is that this position misses the relationship between sexuality and identity and just does not become very tenable when we practice it with actual homosexuals who we are not then expecting to be "reformed" as someone like Colson or Exodus would have it. IT does not ask homosexuals to respond in any way except to live under the umbrella that their identities are not affirmed. This is not very welcoming at all by hypocritical. Please test this hypothesis with the homosexual community to see if it is somehow misguided.
So perhaps a question will clarify it then. I am not a big fan of this is what ought to be the case, but then answering the question of how one lives in that world with ambiguity or a murky pragmatics. I think it is our Christian responsibility to be clear with our flock and not ambiguous with how we understand our relationship to God and that of others. It is our duty to foster reconciliation as you very clearly espouse and we could not agree more.
But what does this kind of reconciliation truly look like when in our invitation of sinners to the table, we are secretly not affirming their identities when we break bread? It is this kind of murky hypocrisy that has been the source of the alienation and denigration of more homosexual brothers and sisters that I can enumerate.
Therefore, the issue is either we welcome unconditionally, or we welcome conditionally. It is only with the greatest integrity that we can hold to either position clearly for the Christian community. The question is what reconciliation looks like within the bounds of that fundamental disagreement. Welcoming but not affirming is simply not going to fly based on the issues I have articulated above among others that I have not.
But I think Gene Robinson has the answer. He says that as Christians we have one responsibility to the world and that is to answer the questions: How were you saved? and then What did you do about it? This is the heart of witness and the common link that holds the Christian family together. Not affirming sets limits on the salvation narratives of our homosexual brothers and sisters. Here again, I would urge you to challenge and test this hypothesis as well.
Again, thanks for the dialogue and I do hope that we can continue. I also hope that my language is not too strong. I do not mean it to be offensive, I am just rather direct more often than not.
Markeesha,
Thanks for responding. As I indicated to Scot, my issue is of clarity of language when we engage others relationally with the Gospel. If there are conditions to that relationship, then we need to be clear and honest about them and then be willing to engage a dialogue about them. I think Scot has engaged the dialogue which is a very good place for all of us to be.
But the position begs homosexuals to cry out: Lord I believe, help my unbelief, and it is unfair to set up the structure where that tension simply exists without any clarity or resolution on the other side.
Scot,
Thanks for reading. I am glad that you engaged my thoughts and indeed you did generate conversation! Please also excuse the strong language. As with most blogging environments my initial posts are generally not intended to frame debate rules and I would usually not use language of that candor in a formal debate setting. However, I do tend to prefer stronger language that is clear rather than more toned down language that can often obscure things.
To your question on Paul, to say that he does not have a very resonant and clear theology of the Law as it relates to the Cross seems quite clear in his discussion of it in Romans especially in chapters 3 and 5. But perhaps you can elaborate on your contention here. To also say that the relationship between Law and the Cross (namely the central revelation of God's grace to which Paul clearly holds the law realtive)is not formulated in a theology that Paul is putting forward seems to be more of an issue of semantics than of substance. It is not a "systematic" or "dogmatic" theology, but it is a theology nonetheless.
My problem with the language of "welcoming but not affirming" is that is does not seem to have much merit since it makes a firm distinction between the person and the specific sinful behavior. Hence, it is not the desire that is so much a problem (or perhaps it is in this view, but I am assuming here that it is not), but the acting upon that desire or, the specific behavior that is the problem. While we can work this out logically, and I think you have done so as well as could be asked, I do not think this position holds much merit when one tries to live it. This is what sounds like double-speak. I will accept you, but clearly I cannot *really* accept your behavior or probability of behavior does not meet specific conditions.
Perhaps this position would equate homosexual behavior with drug addiction or other behaviors that are clearly denigrating to the human person, but I would venture a guess that you would not make such an equation – all the better for it. Or does homosexuality inherently catalyze or promote the "cracked Eikon" that is human being? This seems to be a rather arbitrary judgment in what are clearly a limited and somewhat ambiguous set of texts that deal specifically or, I think, rather tangentially to the issue of homosexual behavior as it would exist between two loving persons who uphold each other and quite regularly can enhance the relationship the partner has with God.
The problem is that this position misses the relationship between sexuality and identity and just does not become very tenable when we practice it with actual homosexuals who we are not then expecting to be "reformed" as someone like Colson or Exodus would have it. IT does not ask homosexuals to respond in any way except to live under the umbrella that their identities are not affirmed. This is not very welcoming at all by hypocritical. Please test this hypothesis with the homosexual community to see if it is somehow misguided.
So perhaps a question will clarify it then. I am not a big fan of this is what ought to be the case, but then answering the question of how one lives in that world with ambiguity or a murky pragmatics. I think it is our Christian responsibility to be clear with our flock and not ambiguous with how we understand our relationship to God and that of others. It is our duty to foster reconciliation as you very clearly espouse and we could not agree more.
But what does this kind of reconciliation truly look like when in our invitation of sinners to the table, we are secretly not affirming their identities when we break bread? It is this kind of murky hypocrisy that has been the source of the alienation and denigration of more homosexual brothers and sisters that I can enumerate.
Therefore, the issue is either we welcome unconditionally, or we welcome conditionally. It is only with the greatest integrity that we can hold to either position clearly for the Christian community. The question is what reconciliation looks like within the bounds of that fundamental disagreement. Welcoming but not affirming is simply not going to fly based on the issues I have articulated above among others that I have not.
But I think Gene Robinson has the answer. He says that as Christians we have one responsibility to the world and that is to answer the questions: How were you saved? and then What did you do about it? This is the heart of witness and the common link that holds the Christian family together. Not affirming sets limits on the salvation narratives of our homosexual brothers and sisters. Here again, I would urge you to challenge and test this hypothesis as well.
Again, thanks for the dialogue and I do hope that we can continue. I also hope that my language is not too strong. I do not mean it to be offensive, I am just rather direct more often than not.
Markeesha,
Thanks for responding. As I indicated to Scot, my issue is of clarity of language when we engage others relationally with the Gospel. If there are conditions to that relationship, then we need to be clear and honest about them and then be willing to engage a dialogue about them. I think Scot has engaged the dialogue which is a very good place for all of us to be.
But the position begs homosexuals to cry out: Lord I believe, help my unbelief, and it is unfair to set up the structure where that tension simply exists without any clarity or resolution on the other side.
Hi, Drew, you popped in and left a comment on my other blog (Outside the Box).
I think homosexuality elicits a strong emotional reaction from many Christians because it retains an association with defilement. All sins are bad, but homosexuality seems especially bad because it is a defiling sin (as I've expressed the point here). That's our emotional response — but it's not objectively so.
Jews have worked out several degrees of defilement. "Cleanliness was understood [by the rabbis] to be closely connected with Levitical purity; of this there were several degrees, there being sections in the community which observed its rules more strictly and extensively than did others." (Jewish Encyclopedia) I forget the exact language, but a person who keeps purity to the third level would be contaminated by contact with an ordinary Jew; and a person who keeps purity to the second level would be contaminated by contact with a person of 3rd-level purity, etc. You always have to be mindful of everyone else's degree of purity.
I mention it because I think that's the logic of Scot's position: it would result in degrees of purity in the Church.
I don't think defilement per se has any place in Christianity. I think Jesus' practice of inclusiveness specifically set concerns about purity aside:
"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him" (Mark 7:15). The things that "come out of" a person — out of his or her heart — includes sexual immorality, but also theft, murder, coveting, deceit, slander, pride — these things "defile".
Here Jesus is using "defile" to refer to ethical stains, rather than the ceremonial stains that arise from eating with unwashed hands, or physical contact with a menstruating woman, or any of the other things that so preoccupy the rabbis. As I said above, defilement per se didn't figure in Jesus' system of morality. All sins "defile" in the figurative sense (moral impurity); no sin defiles in the literal sense (ceremonial impurity).
What I'm saying is that the emotion surrounding this issue is out of place. Homosexuality is a sin, according to a couple of biblical texts. But it isn't worse than, say, greediness — see 1Co. 6:9-10. Somehow we manage to be inclusive of greedy people in our churches.
The fact is that we're all sinners; no one has the moral high ground when we meet around the Lord's table, which I think is the point you're making in your post.
I think we should let gays and lesbians make their own moral choices before God, and accept them in the Church without establishing degrees of purity. Given the scientific evidence that you allude to, and Jesus' example of radical inclusiveness, it's time for the Church to focus its attention on something else.
Hi, Drew, you popped in and left a comment on my other blog (Outside the Box).
I think homosexuality elicits a strong emotional reaction from many Christians because it retains an association with defilement. All sins are bad, but homosexuality seems especially bad because it is a defiling sin (as I've expressed the point here). That's our emotional response — but it's not objectively so.
Jews have worked out several degrees of defilement. "Cleanliness was understood [by the rabbis] to be closely connected with Levitical purity; of this there were several degrees, there being sections in the community which observed its rules more strictly and extensively than did others." (Jewish Encyclopedia) I forget the exact language, but a person who keeps purity to the third level would be contaminated by contact with an ordinary Jew; and a person who keeps purity to the second level would be contaminated by contact with a person of 3rd-level purity, etc. You always have to be mindful of everyone else's degree of purity.
I mention it because I think that's the logic of Scot's position: it would result in degrees of purity in the Church.
I don't think defilement per se has any place in Christianity. I think Jesus' practice of inclusiveness specifically set concerns about purity aside:
"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him" (Mark 7:15). The things that "come out of" a person — out of his or her heart — includes sexual immorality, but also theft, murder, coveting, deceit, slander, pride — these things "defile".
Here Jesus is using "defile" to refer to ethical stains, rather than the ceremonial stains that arise from eating with unwashed hands, or physical contact with a menstruating woman, or any of the other things that so preoccupy the rabbis. As I said above, defilement per se didn't figure in Jesus' system of morality. All sins "defile" in the figurative sense (moral impurity); no sin defiles in the literal sense (ceremonial impurity).
What I'm saying is that the emotion surrounding this issue is out of place. Homosexuality is a sin, according to a couple of biblical texts. But it isn't worse than, say, greediness — see 1Co. 6:9-10. Somehow we manage to be inclusive of greedy people in our churches.
The fact is that we're all sinners; no one has the moral high ground when we meet around the Lord's table, which I think is the point you're making in your post.
I think we should let gays and lesbians make their own moral choices before God, and accept them in the Church without establishing degrees of purity. Given the scientific evidence that you allude to, and Jesus' example of radical inclusiveness, it's time for the Church to focus its attention on something else.
Q,
I liberated your post from spam! Glad I found it there as well. Quite insightful. I do think that the probable outcome is not just that it results in a system of purity as you mention, but that it rather explicitly enforces a system that has been culturally legislated and normed. My problem with the "welcome but not affirm" position is that is sounds like full inclusion, but it is in fact clearly not. The problem is that when your intent and actions do not match, it simply lacks integrity. That loss of integrity in relation to the homosexual is what this position sets up and thus creates a serious moral problem.
I also think that we do the texts a bit of injustice when we infer a moral absolute that is directly applicable to our current situation. This is where I part ways with evangelicals with my hermeneutic of scripture. I think so much of it enforces an ethic bound to its sitz in leben that we ought not simply apply those same cultural norms and ethical systems – especially of purity – to our own situation. It think the way we interpret must be in conversation with our experience in an explicit manner and that our ideas about the text need quite a bit of flexibility. So sue me, I have a rather low biblicism in order to maintain my high regard for a God that is not fully known in the text itself. This is where the Cross is directive of these issues since it does reveal a love that people find absurd – otherwise Jesus would have not been crucified and we would not still crucify him today with what we say and do.
Does this mean cherry pick the text so it suits our needs? No. It means to get at the kernel of the message itself and not to focus on so many tangential issues that are clearly ambiguous as to make the kernel pointless to our praxis of Christian life.
The text in Romans is about distinct boundaries between those in the community of faith and those outside of that community. Those outside lust after each other, those inside ought not behave as such. Did Paul probably not even consider the validity of a loving homosexual relationship? Perhaps he did not and we will never know, but that is clearly not what he sets up in this crucial distinction here as he does with the Corinthians and with the Colossians especially. But to infer that this is what these injunctions also refer to is making an arbitrary judgment outside of the evidence presented in the rhetorical style of the text.
My position is love our homosexual brothers and sisters fully, talk about sex openly and honestly with one another, speak to the sins of envy, pride, gluttony, lust, etc. in that context and love one another demanding of one another the love the Christ showed his church. That is what we have been baptized into, and it is high time we started living in accord with the inclusion our baptism gives us by God's grace alone.
Q,
I liberated your post from spam! Glad I found it there as well. Quite insightful. I do think that the probable outcome is not just that it results in a system of purity as you mention, but that it rather explicitly enforces a system that has been culturally legislated and normed. My problem with the "welcome but not affirm" position is that is sounds like full inclusion, but it is in fact clearly not. The problem is that when your intent and actions do not match, it simply lacks integrity. That loss of integrity in relation to the homosexual is what this position sets up and thus creates a serious moral problem.
I also think that we do the texts a bit of injustice when we infer a moral absolute that is directly applicable to our current situation. This is where I part ways with evangelicals with my hermeneutic of scripture. I think so much of it enforces an ethic bound to its sitz in leben that we ought not simply apply those same cultural norms and ethical systems – especially of purity – to our own situation. It think the way we interpret must be in conversation with our experience in an explicit manner and that our ideas about the text need quite a bit of flexibility. So sue me, I have a rather low biblicism in order to maintain my high regard for a God that is not fully known in the text itself. This is where the Cross is directive of these issues since it does reveal a love that people find absurd – otherwise Jesus would have not been crucified and we would not still crucify him today with what we say and do.
Does this mean cherry pick the text so it suits our needs? No. It means to get at the kernel of the message itself and not to focus on so many tangential issues that are clearly ambiguous as to make the kernel pointless to our praxis of Christian life.
The text in Romans is about distinct boundaries between those in the community of faith and those outside of that community. Those outside lust after each other, those inside ought not behave as such. Did Paul probably not even consider the validity of a loving homosexual relationship? Perhaps he did not and we will never know, but that is clearly not what he sets up in this crucial distinction here as he does with the Corinthians and with the Colossians especially. But to infer that this is what these injunctions also refer to is making an arbitrary judgment outside of the evidence presented in the rhetorical style of the text.
My position is love our homosexual brothers and sisters fully, talk about sex openly and honestly with one another, speak to the sins of envy, pride, gluttony, lust, etc. in that context and love one another demanding of one another the love the Christ showed his church. That is what we have been baptized into, and it is high time we started living in accord with the inclusion our baptism gives us by God's grace alone.
Thank again, Drew, for your post. I cannot tell you how awesome it is (and soul-reviving) to hear this point of view from a straight person. It gives me so much hope for the future of Christianity (and not just the "fundamental evangelical church"…Christianity).
I have a major problem with "welcome but not affirming" stance. Being caught in the middle of this tension in a very real sense has made me clarify a lot of what I believe, and feel, about this issue. What I would say is this: welcoming isn't radical, and don't pretend it is. Jesus calls out the "lukewarm" believers so many times in his ministry. And I see this welcome-not-affirming stance entirely lukewarm.
As you point out (so coherently), there is this unanswered question left hanging in the air: what is one to do, then? It's like this, "Sure, be gay, but I don't approve. Christ's love is radical and we will let you "join in," but don't expect to be affirmed." What does that mean? And as a side note, this idea of "affirming" is ridiculous. No one needs the affirmation of a human body of believers. And I guarantee that if one congregation will be welcoming, but not affirming, there ARE other congregations that do both. And Christianity (or the nation, as James Dobson would have us believe) is still intact. Basically, it's extremely presumptuous for a group of believers to claim the right to discriminate who gets this "affirmation" and who doesn't. Sexual sin (real sin – not the wishy-washy idea of sin associated with homosexuality) is often overlooked, forgiven, and is not grounds for pseudo-excommunication.
I'm thankful soul-deep for the church I attend. They are fully WELCOMING and AFFIRMING. I don't have to pander to the general consensus that my sexual orientation is a cause for concern or internal battle. I'm gay, I'm Christian, God doesn't care. End of story.
Another thing (promise, last point): Jesus, in his ministry, talks and preaches about money more than the kingdom of heaven on earth or heaven. Behind money is widows and orphans. Let's forget about worrying who our neighbor chooses to be a in a relationship with and focus on these REAL issues that Jesus seems much more concerned about. /end rant
A
Thank again, Drew, for your post. I cannot tell you how awesome it is (and soul-reviving) to hear this point of view from a straight person. It gives me so much hope for the future of Christianity (and not just the "fundamental evangelical church"…Christianity).
I have a major problem with "welcome but not affirming" stance. Being caught in the middle of this tension in a very real sense has made me clarify a lot of what I believe, and feel, about this issue. What I would say is this: welcoming isn't radical, and don't pretend it is. Jesus calls out the "lukewarm" believers so many times in his ministry. And I see this welcome-not-affirming stance entirely lukewarm.
As you point out (so coherently), there is this unanswered question left hanging in the air: what is one to do, then? It's like this, "Sure, be gay, but I don't approve. Christ's love is radical and we will let you "join in," but don't expect to be affirmed." What does that mean? And as a side note, this idea of "affirming" is ridiculous. No one needs the affirmation of a human body of believers. And I guarantee that if one congregation will be welcoming, but not affirming, there ARE other congregations that do both. And Christianity (or the nation, as James Dobson would have us believe) is still intact. Basically, it's extremely presumptuous for a group of believers to claim the right to discriminate who gets this "affirmation" and who doesn't. Sexual sin (real sin – not the wishy-washy idea of sin associated with homosexuality) is often overlooked, forgiven, and is not grounds for pseudo-excommunication.
I'm thankful soul-deep for the church I attend. They are fully WELCOMING and AFFIRMING. I don't have to pander to the general consensus that my sexual orientation is a cause for concern or internal battle. I'm gay, I'm Christian, God doesn't care. End of story.
Another thing (promise, last point): Jesus, in his ministry, talks and preaches about money more than the kingdom of heaven on earth or heaven. Behind money is widows and orphans. Let's forget about worrying who our neighbor chooses to be a in a relationship with and focus on these REAL issues that Jesus seems much more concerned about. /end rant
A
A,
It is your kind of perspective that motivates me to continue to post on the plight of the homosexual in the church. If there is a truly marginalized group in our culture right now, it is the homosexual. And the marginality is not an economic issue or a racial issue, but solely an ideological and value driven issue that is totally as arbitrary as assuming women are too emotional and black people are less human than whites. The bible was used in as assured and justified manner to marginalize both women and persons of color and we have yet to hear a coherent explanation how this kind of marginalization is different.
Further, the judgments rendered that welcome yet affirm also have another effect. If there is sufficient reason not to affirm, is it also true that a person who is a "practicing" homosexual (perish the concept since it is as redundant as saying "I am me") has therefore less capacity to unite with God through Christ? One would have to determine this in the affirmative for if union with Christ is not contingent upon one's behavior in this kind of situation, we have been spinning our wheels amidst useless jabber all along. Can the homosexual be completely reconciled to God as a homosexual (for an abstinent gay is still a gay and still enjoys the intimacy of the same gender but out of an act of will chooses not to fulfill that intimacy)? With the position of welcoming yet affirming we would have to say that no, it is not as high a probability or the capacity for the union is not as great as with the heterosexual. The scriptures are clear about what prevents that union from being as full as it could be, and a loving relationship with a person of the same gender is clearly not one of those stumbling blocks to the love of God.
Again, I would beseech those who disagree with this position to test it. If it is upheld then the homosexual must be delusional or have some other kind of mental issue that is the cause for their irrational desire. Then one has to argue why their position is more probable than that of the scientific community as it currently stands.
So again, the most rational position is either completely welcome and affirm, or not to welcome not to affirm. It is a simple equation of integrity that welcome and affirm does not observe and hence, it is fundamentally irrational. And anyone is free to disprove any of these propositions. I have only seen this attempted with uncritical appeals to authority, ad hominems, and other fallacies that simply support the argument in form if not even in content.
A,
It is your kind of perspective that motivates me to continue to post on the plight of the homosexual in the church. If there is a truly marginalized group in our culture right now, it is the homosexual. And the marginality is not an economic issue or a racial issue, but solely an ideological and value driven issue that is totally as arbitrary as assuming women are too emotional and black people are less human than whites. The bible was used in as assured and justified manner to marginalize both women and persons of color and we have yet to hear a coherent explanation how this kind of marginalization is different.
Further, the judgments rendered that welcome yet affirm also have another effect. If there is sufficient reason not to affirm, is it also true that a person who is a "practicing" homosexual (perish the concept since it is as redundant as saying "I am me") has therefore less capacity to unite with God through Christ? One would have to determine this in the affirmative for if union with Christ is not contingent upon one's behavior in this kind of situation, we have been spinning our wheels amidst useless jabber all along. Can the homosexual be completely reconciled to God as a homosexual (for an abstinent gay is still a gay and still enjoys the intimacy of the same gender but out of an act of will chooses not to fulfill that intimacy)? With the position of welcoming yet affirming we would have to say that no, it is not as high a probability or the capacity for the union is not as great as with the heterosexual. The scriptures are clear about what prevents that union from being as full as it could be, and a loving relationship with a person of the same gender is clearly not one of those stumbling blocks to the love of God.
Again, I would beseech those who disagree with this position to test it. If it is upheld then the homosexual must be delusional or have some other kind of mental issue that is the cause for their irrational desire. Then one has to argue why their position is more probable than that of the scientific community as it currently stands.
So again, the most rational position is either completely welcome and affirm, or not to welcome not to affirm. It is a simple equation of integrity that welcome and affirm does not observe and hence, it is fundamentally irrational. And anyone is free to disprove any of these propositions. I have only seen this attempted with uncritical appeals to authority, ad hominems, and other fallacies that simply support the argument in form if not even in content.
[...] Some of you who read my blog know that I am an ardent if not frequently vociferous supporter of full inclusion and embrace of the LGBT community in society and in the church. This week the Open Hearts, [...]