Thank you for the intelligent and loving response. Your graciousness to others should be a model for those of us who simply jump into name-calling and categorizing. Thank you also for making yourself more clear on some of the issues.

Now I hope that with the same attitude, Mark Driscoll will be gracious enough as to do the same in response to his post.

Well, it looks like I might be the first commentor on this...which feels weird, since I rarely read this blog. Hopefully I will be respectful (satire is good in blog form, but not in the comments section where it gets lost much of the time). Before I say anything else, I should state that I am conservative...very conservative. Not emergent, or even sympathetic emergent (though I have friends and family who are; as a 22 year old it's inevitable). Quite frankly, I think you may have missed the point of many of the objections to your article. You said near the end, "I am very likely wrong in my personal opinions on homosexuality (which, by the way, were never expressed in the piece, contrary to the assumptions of many responders)." The fact that you failed to give your stance on homosexuality IS the problem. Whether you intended this to be or not, much of this reply about the meaning of the terms, ecclesiology, learning to be loving, etc., is just one big smokescreen. As a major leader, whether you like it or not people want an answer on this. When you raise theological questions, you're supposed to answer them- if not, then prepare to be criticized. For the record, I am one of those close-minded people who happens to think that "arsenokoitai" is a pretty clear word, but until you actually side one way or the other (even tentatively) then discussion is fruitless. Again, I don't what to be rude or mean or arrogant. I just wish there would be a little less double-speak here.

incredible...three times as long and even less clarity/charity.

I read your post, and many of the comments which followed. To my dismay it became more of a vehement devouring of them, whichever side them fell on, and less of the discussion I felt you originally desired. In fact, excuse me for a minute while I say, 'Thank you God!' that Jesus is never fighting in such a battle, but rather serving those who are being devoured; in this case first homosexuals, and also those who are attacked simply for expressing their lack of knowledge on a partiucular matter, again regardless of which side they fall on.

I have beliefs concerning the matter of homosexuality. However, I am fallible and yet seeking to enrich my understanding privately and in discussion with others. But, more imporantly than that, it is not my priority to defend my beliefs or carp at those in disagreement with my opinion on the topic. And, especially in a situation like the one you encountered, I believe the priority of the pastor remains as it should always: allowing Christ to serve, heal, speak, and so on. Proclaiming to the couple that 'Our church embraces homosexuality!' or 'Our church is strictly against homosexuality!' would likely have put yourself in the way of the Spirit's work in the situation. Of course, responding to questions and concerns on touchy matters often means cutting and pain before healing and grace, as Mr. Byron Williams aptly asserted. Yet no matter what the case I hope and pray that all God's people, Mr. McLaren included, will allow Christ to do that!

The couple came with a question about the church's stance on homosexuality. Allow the Spirit to inform us what is the matter at hand, the concern behind the question. Allow God to humble us so that our opinions and desires don't get in the way of His ministry to the couple in the office. Allow Jesus to respond to them, in love and truth, through the vessel of our muddied, opinionated, and prideful selves.

So I say to you, Mr. McLaren, well done on what appears to me as an honest attempt to listen and respond like I just mentioned. Well done to those who posted, regardless of your position, in humility and love. But shame on you who allowed your opinions, beliefs, doctrines; namely yourself, to get in the way in an attempt to devour your opponent. And once again, shame on you who did this regardless of what your position on the topic is!

Thank you for this, Brian.

And it is responses like that Brian that make me love your character more and more.

Brian,

Thanks for continually pushing me to be a better person and more faithful Christ follower through your thoughtful response.

Shema
randy buist

thanks Brian.
Good series of questions there for groups to ponder.
And its good to be reminded that we are often guests on others blogs, or sites, or in churches, or at conferences and each one of those may have a slightly different take in their official policy.
i always appreciate your humble manner.

::clap, clap, clap::

Here is a big question for ya Brian. I struggle with you, I listen and read you intently and happen to feel like God teaches and leads me through you. But I also feel the same way about Mark Driscoll. I read his post, and while being a little over the top and a little too sarcastic...I felt like his take on the question and struggle surrounding homosexuality was balanced, and seasoned with Grace. So here is my question: can I like both you guys?

Good post. However some readers will note that McLaren's personal opinions on homosexuality are still not clarified. McLaren now says the moratorium is a a hypothetical idea that he doesn't seriously expect to happen. The phrases "perhaps we need a moritorium" along with "we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made.. " etc makes it sound like McLaren thinks this may be a good idea, and he`d support it if someone was able to make it happen. Perhaps it just could have been worded better, or not suggested at all.

Why suggest it? It just encourages the Christian Right - who think they are right and McLaren is wishy-washy - to engage in the hurtful and divisive rhetoric that McLaren wants to avoid in suggesting his hypothetical proposal. The problem is that not many people who think they may disagree with McLaren know what to disagree with because they feel McLaren does not state his position clearly enough. That frustrates them.

Its good to see that McLaren thinks it is equally important to be "right" and "wise, loving, patient, and pastoral". As he says he thinks he is likely to be wrong on his position on homosexuality, perhaps he may want to spend time - not five years - considering his position on homosexuality as carefully as he desires to put into words his expression of the issues.

At least his heart appears to be in the right place.

I'm sorry, Brian, but I just don't get it. As a Christian I fail to understand how any educated, thoughtful, prayerful, disciple of Jesus Christ could be so wishy-washy on a topic as central to our existence as sexuality. I'm not saying our genetic engineering is simplistic. I'm appealing to you as a brother in Christ to decry homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle in the eyes of God. What are you hoping to prove by not openly stating your position?

The only conversation regarding homosexuality that I'm interested in is how to befriend, relate to, and disciple gays in a way that would please God. The biblical passages you mentioned and nature itself make this one an open and shut case for me. Admittedly, I'm not a theologian or bible scholar.

Having stated my opinion, Brian, I am open to any information that might help me understand where it is you're coming from.

Brian,

Thank you.

As a 35 year old anglican 'curate' (kind of apprentice minister), I sometimes get a kind of hollow dread in my guts and think, "this is all just too screwed up, I need to get out of here!"

At the risk of appearing to be a sycophant, your writings have been one of the main ways that God then gives me renewed hope and vision for ministry. Both this and the original post have done that again.

Thank you.

thanks brian...
some good thoughts that outline the complexity of not only the questions surrounding homosexuality, but also the complexity of discussing it in an online space.

I hope the ongoing discussion can be born out of love for each other - recognising that it is the same Spirit of Christ working in each of us, and that we are each seeking, carefully and deliberately, to enable ourselves and others to become more fully human.

Brian, a very interesting response. It is diffiuclt to know how to deal with such sensitive issues.

We could cast anyone who sins out of the church but then of course there would be no church as we all sin.

I believe our response to homosexuality, sexuality, divorce etc should be thoughtful, sensitive and above all compassionate.

How can we show the world that Jesus loves when we exclude sinners from a church full of sinners?

Brian’s use of “we” was unclear. But now he has clarified it. I have yet to meet someone – anyone – who was at all times perfectly clear. At least I know it’s not me.

Personally I would like to know Brian’s position on homosexuality. This is because I find it harder to understand pastoral application pieces when there is no stated theological position piece. Theological position informs pastoral application. Then, a dialectic begins between theological position and pastoral application. But I think both are needed. So Brian, if you want to help someone like me on an issue like this, please give me both theological position and pastoral application. Becaue you ask, “if you are certain without a shadow of doubt that homosexual behavior is always wrong, where do you draw the line?” This is a good question. But if I, the reader, am uncertain where a writer is on a position, how do I make any sense of pastoral application? Different theological positions raise different questions as to where to “draw the line.”

I’ll add this: State a position on anything and an “us/them” situation will be there. I don’t see how this can be avoided. I do see how hating and mocking and ridiculing “them” can be avoided. But I say again, using Brian’s language, ”we” always “deteriorates” into “us/them.” I think it did for Jesus. The issue for me then becomes how we speak both love and truth at that point. And a toughie for me then becomes the real application of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 that his children would "all be one, as he and the Father are one." I'm going to begin asking for God's help to empower me to apply this in my own marriage and with my sons.

God bless your socks Brian...

God bless them indeed.

You've taken what could only be described as a sometimes rude and vicious attack on yourself and others and responded with even more wisdom, prayer and scriptural reflection.

A part of me even wonders if this could have been an ambush in disguise, but you've handled this really well, with grace, patience and love...

(I look forward to seeing you in Australia soon)

Because of the degree to which political mindset has infiltrated church culture, there's almost no room left for nuanced discussion in our soundbite society. As such, the default setting of most Christians is the compartmentalization of one another, as opposed to grace and love. Instead of "we," it's "us/them."

I join you, Brian, in agonizing over some of these questions. Such issues are made gut-wrenchingly complex by the mandate that the surpassing truth of Love be at their core.

I look forward to seeing you in CT next week.

Brian, you are a class act.

There is no question God has called you to be a voice in the evangelical church. (I'm not an "evangelcal") I admire you for your the patience and grace in which you respond. I suspect this is only possible through prayer and a commitment to being a voice of Christ in this Church. You must be called, for I suspect you couldn't do it if you were not.

"Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." May you continue to be a voice of Love that builds up the Body of Christ.

Wow. Is there really this much confusion in the emergent community? I hope not for their sake. Additionally, I don't see any new information than what was in the original.

As a repentant homosexual, saved by the grace of God via the blood of Jesus, I can only grieve at the thought of the number of homosexuals and others who will never come to know salvation and the boundless love and mercy of God because of "pastors" like you.

I find this response hardly sufficient to address what the real issues were in the original post. I did not see anyone calling for a lack of love towards homosexuals. I think most agree that we need to be loving, kind, and tactful.

The problem was that Brian is waffling on a clear declaration of Scripture and calling it love. How can that be? It can only be a misunderstanding of what love is.

To deal with the text honestly and faithfully can only see the clarity with which homosexual behavior is condemned unilaterally in Scripture. We find no positive or neutral reference to homosexaulity. How can Brian conclude that there is room for disagreement on the matter?

He claims he still hasn't given his opinion about homosexuality. Brian, that is the problem. You haven't. God has spoken and you have so far refused to speak with clarity about what God has spoken about.

I won't defend Driscoll. I thought Mark's response was over the top. I thought it lacked humility and grace. I thought it dealt very rudely with a real issue. He took the right stand in the wrong way.

But don't blame Mark for Brian's failures in this area. Where God has clearly spoken, and he unquestionably has, then we need not say less than God said.

Brian,
While I can see that your response here is bathed in love and grace for which I applaud you, I am still left wondering why you feel the need to open up for disscussion a topic that has long been settled within the church. Ministry is by no means easy, and granted the positions the Bible takes on many issues are not always the one which will be the most popular in the culture, but I still think we are called to be faithful to what God has spoken for his Kingdom. Granted, conservatives are just as guilty of doing this as the often skip over the parts of scripture that call of social justice, but I do not see how it is helpful to advancing the Kingdom of God by bringing up for debate the homosexual issue.

I also want to say that your pastoral portion in your response obviously comes out of a heart that deeply cares about people. Yet all the hypothetical situations that you listed are not as complex as you made them out to be, you said;

"And do you allow heterosexual people who attend your services to have gay friends?
Must they confront those friends in order to be faithful Christians? What if they don’t?"

I have read a number of your books Brian, and you are much more apologetically compotent than this. Good loving Biblical Churches have never encouraged their members to go out to the world and be sin police calling down judgement upon all unbelievers they encounter, but rather we are to be a blessing and let Jesus transform their lives, and then as they inquire we are prepared to give them a loving and faithful answer. As pastors we are not called to be successful, liked, but rather clear and faithful. I would love to see your contributions to the Kingdom if you brought those to the table Brian.

brian,

thanks for taking the time to respond to all this, i have always admired your willingness to be open and available. you have modeled character and that is a rare commodity.

a huuuuge thanks for your willingness to still be in the game and stick out all the criticism.

I think 'right behavior' needs to be contextualised, within 'current capacity'. It is possible for some of us to pursue more accurate understandings of reality than others, so, we each strive only to achieve the accuracy of understanding which befits our individual maximum capacity. As such, in matters of theological understanding, there is No Such Thing as a one-size-fits all answer. The matter of fact is, we cannot duplicate Christ's path in an atom-for-atom fashion. Some of us can only approximate Christ's path in a manner which may appear to the naive observer as bring grossly deviant. But such is proper Christian living. We are responsible for living our own lives as Christians, not somebody else's weak caricature of humility.

Brian,

Thank you for demonstrating a depth and honesty that is often lacking in our discussions of issues that make us uncomfortable.

I am glad that you didn't state a position. Had you done so, everyone who disagreed with your view would have likely either stopped reading, or read only with an eye toward refuting your position. Both responses would have taken the pressure off the reader. Spending time living with an uncomfortable queston is often far more valuable for our growth as people of faith. Easy answers, though certainly less messy, frewquently are not deep enough to last when confronted with a difficult reality.

I hope that you will keep raising the questions and challenging us to deal with them honestly and thoroughly.

I appreciate your candor Brian. Look forward to seeing you at the Baltimore Cohort tonight.

I've posted on this discussion over at my blog. Just too long to post on here.

http://lambo.blogspot.com

1) I'm assuming Brian believes that homosexual practice is incompatible with Biblical Christianity. Could he please write to confirm that I am correct in this assumption, and can he state why he holds this view?

2) Why did his article not pose the exegetical questions he raises in his reply? Why does he hint at other exegetical problems with the traditional position, and not spell out all his reservations clearly? If you refuse to sit down at the chess board you can't be checkmated.

3) I do not know of any major proponent of the traditional view who bases their opinion on the key texts alone. Usually arguments from Biblical theology are also used. Pauls language is compared to the language of the Rabbis (and it would seem fair to conclude that he shared their reservations. Jesus and Paul are ripped out of their historical context by revisionists.) On many occassions arguments from natural law are used to complement scripture. Utiltarian arguments are also used. Queer Theory is often used as a dialogue partner.

4) Brians first article was not really about homosexuality - it was really about how difficult it can be to impose Church discipline, (and disagree with a secular society) in a Christ like way. Everyone knows this is a problem. Why were these issues addressed in the context of homosexuality, and not abortion, living wills, or cohabitation or even exclusive truth claims about the Gospel. I think that Brian is heterosexist, or homophobic. As one respondent made clear, Gays don't really feel that they need our permission.

5) Exclusive truth claims about the Gospel are deeply offensive - even more so than truth claims about sexual morality. The same hermenutical anxieties that Brian raised about the Traditional teaching on homosexuality can be raised against Evangelical beliefs about the Gospel. Eventually I think some evangelical leaders will abandon evangelicalism altogether - I think logically they will be compelled to. I am not accusing Brian at this point.
6) To make this point again - Jesus was a first century Rabbi. What are the odds, historically speaking, of Jesus approving of homosexual practice? Should we ignore the historical context when Jesus condemns sexual immorality?

7) If the Church can ignore the plain sense of Scripture (no it's not watertight, but you are not going to get Cartesian certainty about your reading of any text, or group of texts) on homosexuality, how can we ever provide a prophetic voice in areas the Bible does address at all? War, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, cannabis, globalisation, torture - the list goes on and on.

8) You are never going to get a reading of the Bible that can go unchallenged - on any subject, ever. So you can let hermenteutical anxiety paralyse your thinking about any subject.

9) Can Brian please define clearly what he means by love, loving attitudes, loving response etc. And I do mean define clearly.

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

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

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

Brian - Well, we've seen this before. As you push us to really think, some respond poorly. And, as always, you respond with grace, and an honest attempt to engage in dialogue. This is a tough calling you've been handed, and many of us continue to pray for you.
Peace.

Brian, thanks for your humility, honesty, and bravery at taking on all the people who so vehemtly disagree with you.

Brian, I honestly want to track with you but I just can't. When you are the guy saying that we should buck two thousand years of church teaching in favor of this "pastoral" dilemma the burden is on you to argue for your position and you have not done that.

You have done a good job of saying that people A. shouldn't be mean to gays and B. shouldn't be mean to you when you say they shouldn't be mean to gays. However, you have not done a good job of actually arguing for why your position deserves a hearing. I am not going to buck what I believe to be the clear teaching of scripture and of most every church father since Christ just because you agonize over it.

I honestly appeal to you to make an argument for your position and to do more then that, explain what your position is. I find it very prideful of you that you think you are more pastoral, more sensitive to biblical nuance, and essentially better then millions (if not billions) of pastors who have come before you in the last two millenia. I am open to the idea that you are right and that there may be a better way to shape the church's position on homosexuality... but you simply must argue for it. You can't just expect us to buy into it because some in the church are mean and you want to play nice.

I've read your books and I like them. I have friends who go to your church and adore you. I want to think the best of you. But please do not leave this conversation simply with an essay on "I wish we could all get along and not say anything too certain."

SEZ

"I understand that for many people, these verses end all dialogue and people like me must seem horribly stupid not to see what’s there so clearly to them. I wish they could understand that some of us encounter additional levels of complexity when we try honestly and faithfully to face these texts."

I wish McLaren would understand that many of us who fall on the conservative side of this issue have also encountered the "additional levels of complexity" when we have tried "honestly and faithfully to face these texts." Although there are some who do spout Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians without understanding the complexities involved, there are others who have understood the complexities and still have come down on the traditional side. To paint an entire segment of evangelicalism as no more than narrow-minded fundies, as McLaren has repeatedly done, is as insulting to the rest of us as Mark Driscoll's rant was to the emerging church folk.

Brian,

From one Pastor to another, accept this one basic truth about ministry:

The Gospel is going to be offensive to some people!

Stand on God's word and delievr it with Love, but stand firm in the truth.
I understand that there are many responding to you from the viewpoint of the "issue" and hadn't had opportunity to deal with the "issue" face to face with the people.

You will be in my prayers.

This has been an interesting discussion to observe from afar. I appreciate the fact that McLaren wants to be sensitive and gentle and agree that many of we conservatives could use more of that in our preaching and teaching.

But I do think that real love speaks the truth - though McLaren and I would quickly point out that we are to do so in love, "with gentleness and respect." But truth, nonetheless - even truth that offends and shocks and ruffles feathers. Biblical truth does that to us all.

As a conservative (Reformed Baptist) I would like to comment on a particular issue. McLaren asks a series of questions regarding how a particular church would handle specific issues regarding homosexuals in the church. I think an ecclesiology that holds a high view and high standard of church membership helps immensely here. Under a church covenant members will lovingly submit to the discipline of the congregation (cf Matt 18, 1 Cor 5). Church discipline is practiced when a church member is continuing in a practice of unrepentant sin, be it homosexuality or fornication or adultery or teaching heresy. Discipline is done out of love for a wayward brother or sister, and is done humbly knowing that, as James warns, we also may be tempted.

Just a few thoughts...

Perhaps what is really at stake here is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.

Brian,

As a self-described Canadian emerging voyageur, I have often struggled with your position (or lack thereof) on this issue. However, this post brought the clarity and understanding I lacked before. Thank you for stepping out in this way.

In the history of my country, there are stories of missionaries to the native people where hundreds of the indigenous people were forced into lakes for unwilling baptisms. Yes, they needed to get saved, but we all know that forcing such a decision on them was futile, especially in that manner. In the same way, whether you are right or wrong, it baffles me that people continually try to force you into the "lake" of their own convictions.

What is most important in your post, I think, is your admission of agony. Whether we are dealing with homosexuality, capital punishment or any other similar issue, if casting judgment, one way or another, does not deeply grieve us, then we miss the heart of God. I appreciate the Christlikeness of your own agony.

Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci

Could it be, Brian, that much of the confusion around your position stems for your equivocating between two questions?

A. Is homosexual practice and lifestyle sinful?
B. How ought Christians to respond pastorally to a homosexual individual?

Many of us can whole-heartedly agree that question B is agonizingly complex (and you do a good job in raising some of these issues), while still believing that the Bible speaks quite clearly to question A. Maybe you would be less prone to misinterpretation if you treated these two questions differently. Clarity in communication and absolute transparency are essential for building up the unity of the Body of Christ.

Thank you Brian.

I've been saddened by the church's fail to respond to "threats" like the issue of homosexuality, and being a part of the Pentecostal movement in Sweden (which in many aspects are like San Francisco, only it being a nation) is much a reason for that.
I find the emerging church, and especially you, to be a fresh wind in the evangelical world. Thanks for showing that there's a way for the church in our time that's about relationships and including people, just like Jesus was all about.

I don't get it.
It's one thing to disagree and it's one thing to believe Brian McLaren is wishy-washy.

But why care so much about his personal view?

No disrespect to the man, I like his insights, his questions, his kind hearted demeanor...

but for heaven's sake...he's JUST A MAN.
The kingdom doesn't rise and fall on his books, his speeches, his pronouncements, etc.

He's speaking about "the how" not "the what" in regards to this issue.

He clarified, for the sake of those who fail to listen, where he stands on "being right" etc. on this issue and it's still not good enough.

All the grandstanding and lecturing in the blogosphere reminds me of another book Brian worked on and it aptly describes what's happening now:

ADVENTURES IN MISSING THE POINT.

It seems to me that McLaren assumes that "pastoral" is the same as not declaring a position. What if being pastoral means to lovingly say that homosexual practice is wrong? McLaren does not seem to even consider this possibility. While I appreciate his attempt to be charitable, it feels like anyone who draws a harder line than he currently does is portrayed as unloving. That doesn't seem fair.

Scripture says to always have an answer. In some cases that is more complex than we would like to admit. However, I think that something Brian and others in leadership positions in this movement need to face is that their lack of ability to take a position actually fuels the fire on issues like this. There are more than two possible positions. It is possible to say that homosexual behaviour is sin and still love gay people. Much like we say heterosexual sexual behaviour outside of marriage is a sin, but we still love people who have done and still do sin in this way.

In my mind, asking where you draw the line in the way that Brian did is a smokescreen. It is a bad line of arguement that can be used regarding any "sin". Jesus was able to call sin what it is and still love people. His example to us was that he hung out with sinners.

It is possible to say that homosexual behaviour is sin and agree that it is a complex issue that needs careful handling due to the churches response in the past.

I can respect an opinion I disagree with. It is hard to respect the kind of answer Brian gives on this issue. I sounds more political than some things I hear during elections.

I am not asking for everyone to think as I do, but at least have the courage of your convictions to say what you believe.

Please understand I love and respect Brian. We have much to learn from him and others as we navigate this post-christian world we journey in.

I have several friends who, although they would call themselves "postmodern" are beginning to distance themselves from anything "emergent" for these very reasons. I must admit, I am one.

Peace

I can empathize with what you are saying. I will readily admit my stand on homosexuality is based as much upon Biblical principles as it is on fear, which I know is wrong. I appreicate the candid encouragement that we should all rethink the issue. However, your tone makes me question whether you are willing to draw lines at all, rather than thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the matter and then draw the lines. The reluctance of the Emergin Church to have boundries troubles me some. I also think your assertion that the reference in Lev. shouldn't be taken literally because not all of the Mosaic Proscriptiions were taken literally, well I find that a little weak. It seems that the idea that homosexuality is contrary to what God intended is consistent throughout Scripture and not simply in Mosaic Porscriptions. Overall though, i appreciated the thoughts expressed. I must say I was a little quick to jump to conclusions and your response caused me to see some planks in my own eye. Let us all pray that the God would give us wisdom on this subject.

Philippians 3:15-16 says, "All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained." An important lesson that I've learned as a pastor is that I'm not responsible for the beliefs or opinions of anyone else. God will move other people along at his pace, but I better live up to what He has taught me. As a teacher, husband, pastor, friend, and acquaintance I am given opportunities to influence, instruct, admonish, exhort, encourage, and even correct others. None of those opportunities for correction have been in blogs or forums. I have to be faithful with those opportunities, but it is not up to me to change anyone's mind.

Well, thanks for your thoughts on that, Brian. Even though I'm not satisfied with your stance on homosexuality, I do sense your humbleness in your post.

You might want to hear Mark Driscolls last sermon from Sunday (the 29th), in which he openly speaks to his church about you (of course he didn't name you). You can download his latest sermon on http://www.marshillchurch.org .

I think one of the major issues involved here that many dissenters are not following up on is interpreting scripture. Brian is essentially asking us to reexamine the way we read scripture in order to be more faithful followers of God and members of the body.

If you want to disagree with Brian and say that he is wrong and unfaithful to scripture, then you need to explain how you read and interpret the Bible. You need to answer his questions about interpretation such as:

"These questions are all the more challenging for some of us when we realize that the Leviticus texts themselves, if taken literally, call for the death penalty. Nobody (I don’t think?) takes that literally, nor do we take many of the other 611 Mosaic proscriptions literally. Why take these selected verses literally, and only partially so? And it gets even more complex for some of us when we realize that people in later Biblical times didn’t enforce some of these proscriptions literally either. For example, David committed adultery but wasn’t killed as Leviticus 20:10 would require; why didn’t Nathan require the death penalty for David and Bathsheba when he brought the word of the Lord?"

Can you really read the Bible with a straight literal interpretation? Is there room for cultural differnces? Can the Bible be read as a blue print or manual of conduct?

Perhaps it's the trustworthy story of God's relationship with humanity that is used by the Spirit of God to draw us closer to him? Is it possible that taking the Bible as a manual of conduct could be "unfaithful" to scirpture.

Wherever you fall on these questions, you need to answer them before saying that Brian is out to lunch.

If you want to think through this some more, read a book called, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals." Webb, the author, arrives at a conclusion that homosexuality is not supported by the Bible, but he arrives at that conclusion in a way that is different from a strict literal reading of the texts.

I appreciate your gentle and challenging voice Brian. The church certainly needs more pastoral hearts like yours.

I ask that we proceed with caution, care, and above all, love when discussing these matters with one another.

Someone once said:
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."
Galatians 5:14-18 ESV

Mr McClaren, while I don't agree with everything you stated, I appreciate the love and grace with which you responded to your critics.

I would dare to say that CT should prayerfully consider discontinuing the Leadership blog. I rarely get a chance to read it, but every time I do, I jump in to the middle of not just a debate, but a sarcastic one at that (in the comments section).

If we, as leaders (I am assuming that most of the comments posts are from church leaders) cannot control our tongues, then we have a big problem. If we cannot debate in a respectful, loving manner, then we should not debate at all. Period. Jesus said that we are His disciples if we love one another.

This blog and our comments are online for all the world to see, if they choose. Please, let's be good examples of Christ-like behavior and speech.

Brian, yes, the Body of Christ has a lot to learn about love. Some of the responses to you were not presented in a good spirit which is not becoming of people born of the Spirit. And, yes, there is a lot to agonize over regarding this painful issue. I am a new and young pastor and am eager to learn how to be a more effective minister among the churched and unchurched alike. And while I appreciate your heart, there are a few aspects of your response that I also agonize over:

1. I don't think it is fair to compare people's hostile response toward you to how they would treat homosexuals. Many who were angry with you would never treat an unchurched person that way, homosexual or not. That is because we all want people to come to know the love of Christ and the salvation found in him. A major issue you raised, whether you intended to or not, is a doctrinal one. Let's remember that Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face over a doctrinal issue. He also referred to some people as dogs and sarcastically expressed his wish that others emasculate themselves . . . over doctrinal issues. I don't think Paul treated unbelievers this way. But within the family of those who confessed Christ he used very tough language because the stakes were so high. While certain responses to you may not have been appropriate, understand that many feel they are contending for the truth on an issue where the stakes are also high. For those who would question whether the stakes are high on this issue I would recommend an article by J.I. Packer which can be found through the following link on this site: Why I walked

2. You spent much of your response defending yourself and pointing out the lack of love in many of the posts. But there were some incredible responses to you that were thoughtful, intelligent, and powerful, most notably by some Christians who have themselves struggled with homosexual orientation in their own lives. They pinpointed some key issues but you didn't seem to respond to them. Instead you chose to focus on the less mature responses.

3. Brian, I was alarmed when I read your original article. You have been given a very large platform and you have the ability to influence multitudes of people. The words you speak or type at your computer have a lot of consequence. Yes, you never made known your view on homosexuality, but what came through loud and clear was your own uncertainty along with a hint of openness to some homosexual relationships. Did you not mean to convey this? You might have been trying to make a point about being pastoral, but your words will inevitably cause many to feel affirmed in their homosexual lifestyle. Those who have forsaken the homosexual lifestyle for Christ might start to feel confused over their decision because of your words. Your words could begin to erode the foundation they stand on. If God does indeed view homosexual practice as sin, then your words could lead many to stumble - and that is no light thing. So that's another thing for you to agonize over that you can add to your list. Because God has given you such a large platform as a leader you need to be careful in choosing your words, especially regarding issues that you are unsure about. Your uncertainty will breed more uncertainty and it just doesn't seem that that should be the Christian leader's role.

This whole enterprise has been an interesting (and often painful!) glimpse into human nature. I hope we learn some lessons about charitable dialogue regardless of how we come down on the issue at hand.

A couple of thoughts:

1.) I hope people hear Brian when he points out that the issue is not always "what does the Bible say?" but "why is it that we apply Biblical literalism only selectively?"

If we apply it selectively, are we not trusting our own understanding in doing so?

Even the most black and white theologs are not nearly as black and white as they might assume; because of this issue of selective biblical application.

2.) I would agree with people who are calling on Brian to state his position. Having read many of Brian's responses to this issue (in print and in other media) I think that now would be a good time to state even a "tentative position"; with openness to further study, prayer and reflection.

3.) Lastly, I think someone hit on something important in one of the earlier comments. Truth is not delivered in a vacuum. People do not ingest TRUTH in one feel swoop. Having a pastoral sensitivity means helping people make the next step towards Jesus. Truth has to make sense to them in light of where they are. All God asks of them (and any of us) is that we continue to walk in faith from point A to point B, then later from point B to C, and so on...

often abstract intellectual debate does take place in a false vacuum. And Brian does well to remind us that this lacks a real-world effectiveness.

Is this the present state of the evangelical church? Are we so addicted to certainty on every minutiae of doctrine that we come out, guns-a-blazing, to assassinate the character and explorations of anyone who gently challenges the party line?

For shame. Saints, the church of Jesus Christ is a really diverse place, and we'd do well to realize appreciate this. I'm sick of how US evangelicalism manufactures consent, turning us all into fearful, plastic, nodding yes men.

Why are there so many people that want to know Brian's thoughts on homosexuality? Whether you know or don't know his stance on the issue, what will that change? Will that just give you an 'Ah, I told you so moment?' or will it give you a 'at least he's on our side' moment?

I think Brian is right on with not even stating his opinion on the matter. He's stating what matters. He's handling it like it matters. If he does state his stance, then I pray that whatever it might be none of us will judge, or start excluding or including based on his opinion on homosexuality. I thank God that he loves God, and he loves people what more can we really want or ask for?

Thank-you Brian for giving us a pastoral response and not a theological one, I think we lack in the pastoral area as the Body of Christ, and this is seen because the theological one is still trying to take over. Most people won't listen to a word you say until you stand on a mountain top (or TV) and say that homosexuals are living in sin and you won't stand for it.

Until then though Brian, may God continue to give you patience, humility and a pastoral heart for people that are hurting and seeking.

Here is a Biblical response to "Pastor" McLaren's supposedly difficult question. The answers are not difficult to come by in Scripture, only difficult to live...

Do you let a homosexual person be a member of your church, or an attender?

Attendee? Yes. They need the gospel like anyone else. Member? No, not while unrepentant of their homosexual sin (a word McLaren didn't even use).

Does your exclusion apply only to "practicing" gays, or to celibate people of gay orientation? ?

Members should be repentant of all sin (including homosexuality) and seek a changed heart to not repeat thier sin. Changing is more than abstaining, even though for some this can be a life-long struggle. But hey, we all face a life-long struggle with sin. It's one more reason to look forward to Heaven.

How many weeks can they attend without being given an ultimatum?

This is more delicate. If they are wolves who disrupt and/or tempt others, then they must be asked to leave, just as a heterosexual who is attempting to prey on the flock. As for membership, they must give signs or repentance as we all must. This isn't rocket science.

How do you find out if a supposedly nonpracticing person is hiding their secret behaviors? ?

The same ways we have helped people overcome other sin for centuries: set up accountability, confront when necessary, demand honestly, love them.

How many failures do you allow before excommunication? ?

That's a decision that varies by person and situation. We're called to be forgive 70 times 7, but on the other hand even God divorced His wife Isreal for her many adulteries (Jer. 3:8). No matter when the excommunication occurs, restoration (upon since repentence) should be the goal.

And do you allow heterosexual people who attend your services to have gay friends? ?

This, again, depends on if the “friend” is claiming to be a Christian. I would must “not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral” [1 Cor. 5:11] and included homosexuality as much as greed. If the friend were not a Christian, then I would certainly befriend them in hopes of being salt and light. Paul sums up, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’” [1 Cor 5:12]. Don’t call than “proof-texting” just because you don’t like what the text proves.

Must they confront those friends in order to be faithful Christians?

Eventually, yes. But if you’ve ever ministered to a homosexual, it WILL come up fairly soon -- right after you “come out” about being a Christian. Trust me.

What if they don’t?

A Christian which does not confront this is not being salt and light. Is it so hard to believe that being salt and light may cost us at least a few friendships with the world. We can put our arm around them, but that won’t get them to Heaven. That requires repentance and faith.

What if your leading elder comes to you to say his daughter has come out as a lesbian?

That would be a great opportunity for that leader to model for the church how a Godly man handles someone involved in homosexuality, and in doing so loves Christ more than anything or anyone on earth. If his daughter is a professing Christian, yet openly lesbian, then the elder is no less bound to 1 Cor. 5:11 than anyone else -- even though following Scripture may cost him dearly eventually. When Jesus warned us to count the cost, he wasn’t limiting his comments to tithing, got it?

What if your daughter comes out?

Again, depends on if she is a professing Christian. See above.

A previous commentor stated; "I am glad that you didn't state a position."

As far as I can tell, Brian DID state his position. It's just that nobody is satisfied with it (including myself). What is his position? It seems that it would go something like this: "after several years of thorough and agonizing study, it appears that, at least for the moment, he can't find enough clear and non-contradictory, contextually concise, hermeneutically consistent, information, to take a clear-cut Biblical stand on this issue."

I personally disagree with that. But as I have read Brian over the past couple of years, it seems that, in a very slippery way, he keeps coming back to this sort of statement.

By question for Brian would be this: Is it simply that you, personally, for the time being, haven't found enough information to resolve this issue; or that you believe that, as a result of the perceived lack of information, we CAN'T resolve this issue?

-Rob

p.s. I did appreciate Brian's statements on keeping the law in context. I have heard many people use Lev. 19:28 to forbid tattooing, while at the same time shaving their beard in direct violation of verse 27.

jemg, Doug and other liberal-leaning Christians,

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

You can discuss sin and the Gospels until the cows come home, but when they do, sin is still sin, whether you like it's ugly face or not, and the Gospels will still be the one, clear Truth, for those honest enough to accept it.

Allowing homosexual behavior, which is so obviously outside of our Father's will for us, to be acceptable practice for a Christian man or woman is to condemn that person to hell. Please don't do that to anymore people who are truly seeking God. Tell them the Truth.

As another real live gay man...I have only one thing to add.

McLaren 1
Driscoll 0

(And Driscoll did stand in the temple and say, thank God I'm not like those [gay] sinners).

Lance
Perth, Australia.

Thanks for showing us some class, Brian. Your response was very thoughtful and your insights continue to inspire me to seek God's truth all around me. Whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong doesn't really matter to me. I am not looking for you to change minds but to point to a posture of love and understanding that we can all learn from. You've succeeded mightily. Peace, brother.

Maybe the key lies in Mark 2: 14-17. Jesus heals a cripple, so that the crowd “may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”. This causes a multitude to gather and follow him, then:

“While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

The thing I want to know is, what did the collectors and sinners think when they heard this? It has to be one of two things: 1. “How dare this guy call me a sinner! I’m outta here!” or 2: “Hey, this amazing guy, who says he’s God, and can heal the sick, is telling me there’s something wrong with the way I’m living my life. I really need to think about this. Plus the mutton is just too good to pass up…Mmmmm”

I really, really think the answer is 2, but if that’s the case, the situation may be hopeless for us. We would like to treat homosexuals kindly while still letting them know they’re sinning, but I doubt any congregation of fallen humans is capable of that level of diplomacy. It looks like even Jesus was only able to pull it off because he was, well, God, and could prove his authority by healing cripples, and with amazing, original teachings. This is a little depressing.

In one of the destinations in Gulliver's Travels, we meet a scientist who has spent years trying to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. This discussion, based largely on hypercritical examination of words, their perceived meanings and possible nuances, seems to be headed in that futile direction.

Brian's list of "where do you draw the line" questions in the 4th paragraph from the end reminded me of the numerous 1st-century extrapolations from the law that generated a list of do's and don'ts about observing the Sabbath. Before long it's going to come down to "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Even if a biblical position is absolutely clear and we printed it in eight-foot letters on billboards every half mile along every road, so that no one could plead ignorance of God's law, what about mercy? Is mercy biblical?

Regardless of the side you're on, you have to consider both "the kindness and sternness of God." The most exegetically precise and nuanced piece of biblical interpretation cannot set aside the obvious (and undisputed) truth that none of us can be righteous through observing the law or--perhaps more to the point--simply upholding its righteous standards.

Brian

Generally a most gracious retort. I was sickened by Driscoll's (and well as others) tone. However, I can relate to some of his frustration.

Why would you persists in a personal belief that is "most likely wrong"? If I felt my personal opinion was most likely wrong, I would chnage my opinion.

And if you are only proposing a moratorium on pronouncements and not discussion or decision making, then why don't you state something clearly so we can discuss it? The issues ARE very complex, but I don't find evasiveness to be very helpful in further the discussion of complex issues.

Brian, it is unfortunate that in Christian debates we become more focused on trying to make our point than in being gracious doing so.

Let me say, (hopefully in a gracious spirit). That I am somewhat alarmed by your article. I feel that you are using a mode of situational ethics to try to rationalize a cultural abomination with trying to be relevant.

No one likes to be offensive to the world. Christ, however, pointed out on several occasions that the world would take umbrage at the truth of the Gospel, even to the point of persecuting those who preach it.

You questioned if anyone takes the Levitical law concerning the death penalty literally. Why wouldn't we? Does not the O.T. repeatedly give examples where this was executed? The fact that in later years Israel departed from this does not mean that God changed His mind on the subject. Israel departed from God's law in many areas, yet it did not nullify the fact of law.

Truth is immutable. Just because the homosexual lifestyle/abomination is becoming more open in our culture does not give us reason to abandon what the Bible says about it.

I fear that this emerging rationale will lead us to the place that Paul warned Timothy about in 2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

"Love" that is not driven by truth falls miserably short of what the Bible calls love.

Well, I didn't read your first writing, and your second was pretty vague, so I may miss the boat completely with my comment, but I can relate especially well to the word "agonize." Although this is not exactly a comment about homosexuality and the church, after my husband and I had been married a little over a year, he met the love of his life, another woman. He stayed in the marriage for another 10 years, and knowing the agony he must have been in for those 10 years, not to be with the one he "truly" loved, makes me a little more understanding of his ultimate decision to end the marriage and leave his wife and children. I agonize that same way when I think of my gay friends, and, frankly, I think that anyone who doesn't agonize over those who love someone that God says they can't have would do well to remain silent. Of course, we know the Bible says homosexual activity is a sin (well, most of us know that), but there are plenty of people who live in sin who attend our churches (people like my ex-husband), and I don't think homosexuals should be singled out. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine what a painful life it is for them.

Whew, Brian, you have really opened a can of worms. Thanks for doing it, though. I think you have asked some very thoughtful and very painful questions.

I cringed reading some of what you wrote over the last week, applauded some and prayed through other parts. But, I read all of it as your brother in Christ who supports you as such whether or not we agree on all points or just some.

I wanted to weigh in on this discussion both as the President of Exodus International (www.exodus.to) the world's largest outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality AND as one who has "been there."

I once lived fully immersed in gay life. My questioning started so early that I once believed that I had to have been born gay---maybe I was.

However, today, I live a life far beyond the struggles that were once so common and came so natural to me. For more than a dozen years I have been living out I Corinthians 6:11 -- the good news that change is possible and has been happening for thousands of years.

I don't know whether homosexuality is genetic and I don't care. I don't believe that homosexuality sends people to Hell--and it shouldn't matter anyway. I don't think homosexuality is what is destroying our country. I do know that God is in love with the homosexual and that he wants their hearts more than he wants their very complex struggles.

I believe homosexuality is one type of sexual sin among many. I believe it is a sin that God hates MOSTLY because it hurts those who are involved in it. It isn't that homosexuality is so bad; it is that it isn't best. In that light, it falls short of the Creator's intent for sexuality. Good is the enemy of God's best.

I do know that Christ died for all of us or He died for none of us. Most Christians don't understand that. We are all so incapable--thank God for Jesus.

As for the moratorium on speaking on the issue of homosexuality...can I beg you to reconsider?

We don't need five more years of indecision on an issue that is clear biblically. We don't need 5 more years of waiting to be compassionate. We don't need 5 more years of people's lives being destroyed by the bondage that homosexuality is. We don’t need 5 more years of young people waiting to hear a clear, albeit compassionate, word. They need us to speak clearly now.

There is a wonderful way to respond to the issue and the people that live the issue everyday. There is a model that we must follow: Jesus, the only one who modeled 100% grace and 100% truth.

The fact is Jesus loves us all as we are, too much to leave us that way. Through a relationship with Him and with the second by second guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can navigate our way through these difficult issues TODAY.

Brian, I am sorry you are being attacked. I am so thankful for your boldness. I am thrilled that you are focused on the most important issue: transforming hearts.

I'd love to get to know you and find ways to serve the gay community together and model something that causes the whole Christian community to follow suit.

thank you brian for this response. for all of the eye-rolling i do when your name is mentioned (if only because of the hero worship that my fellow emergents heap upon you), i find your insights to be refreshing and full of grace.

sadly, it seems that no fruit will every come from this conversation because the debate can't get past the foundational issues. this is understandable when two different paradigms come into conflict over a particular issue.

Greetings Brother,

I see what you are saying and agree with what you said; however, I totally agree that the issue at hand is what was not said. This is what has evangelicals tied in knots.

I totally agree we need to love people in all sorts of sin, we need to consider prayerfully how we ought to minister to them but we cannot and must not be unclear on what God calls such practices. We cannot treat the patient if we refuse to diagnose the problem. We must call all sin ... "sin".

Respectfully yours,

As a gay Christian, I happen to believe that God loves me as I am but still says no to gay sexual behaviour. In the whole 'gay debate' the impression given is that all Christians against gay sexual behaviour are all str8 and those for it are mostly gay. There are quite a few of us like me. I personally cannot reconcile what both the Old and New Testaments say about not just gay sex but also other heterosexual forms practised outside of marriage (ie fornication etc), and having a gay sexual relationship. I dont understand why the Church worldwide is afraid to take a stance on this - is it not supposed to be different? believe me I know the pain involved in attempting to live the Christian life with unresolved sexual tensions and desires, but noone said it would be easy. Jesus had mercy on the prostitute, but he still told her to stop sinning. In the same way I think he says that to both gay and straight Christians who are sleeping with their girlfriends or gay partners. He loves us deeply and wants us to live a life worthy of him - not one where our main concern is our own gratification. I think if some str8 and gay Christians forgot about their penises for a moment and got on with doing what Jesus wants them to do, theyd be alot more content. But thats just my opinion lol.

Ben

Brian,

Thanks for your thoughful treatment of the subject. Even though I am not a pastor, I have studied this issue for personal reasons for the last 25 years, and I am always dismayed by the total certainty displayed by those who are clearly wrong on this issue -- especially those poor, unfortunate souls who insist on using Genesis 19 as a proof text to condemn homosexuality. These people fail in one of the fundamental principles of scriptural interpretation: scripture is the best commentary on scripture, and Sodom's sin is later clearly identified as inhospitability (mistreatment of strangers). They take the use of "abomination" out of context (yeah, gay sex is disgusting - so is lobster; get over it already), selectively enforce Leviticus, attach too much emphasis on God's use of excommunication as a penalty for the behavior, and rely on questionable translations of the Pauline passages.

Then, when the Old Testament passages are no longer adequate to prove their point, they refer to God's original intent as expressed in the creation of Adam and Eve. God's never codified "one man, one woman, one lifetime" in His Law - scripture is quite full of examples of heroes of faith living quite differently from that example. And, reproduction was NOT the primary justification for human sexuality in scripture - intimate companionship was and is the primary reason God created sex. The first thing God EVER said was not good was for man to be alone, and He split man into two different people, who were mutually attracted to one another, to fix that situation.

All the while, they ignore weightier matters (justice, mercy, humility) - just like the only people Jesus ever condemned. I prefer to live by Jesus' direct commandment, and love my neighbor as myself. Loving my neighbor means I seek to promote his happiness and welfare - even if he happens to be shacked up with his college roommate 20 years later. I'm going to choose to affirm their relationship, not condemn it according to the terms of a covenant that never applied to them. The entire Levitical code has been abolished - the sacrificial system, the priestly caste, the cermonial purity laws (dietary and otherwise) - so I will refuse to call what God has cleansed "unclean". Love God, love your neighbor - there is no other requirement under our New Covenant. I may advise my neighbors to stay away from some of my "weaker brethren" who wish to subject them to legal requirements they manage to avoid themselves.

I pray for my ex-gay brethren that they will rediscover the both the sovreignty and grace of God, stop beating themselves over the head about continued temptation, and get on with their purpose in God's Kingdom. They should pray that God provide them with a suitable partner, and then take yes for an answer. There are a growing number of churches that are striving to be true to the scriptures who are "open and affirming", and always looking for people to get involved in growing the Kingdom.

Here endeth the rant.....

Someone much more sensational than myself made the statement that "Truth without love is brutality", and I agree that any response to any sin should be tempered by our love for Christ and our love for our brethren. Certainly, the brutality of a few has been a blight on genuine, caring pastors across the country and the world.

The second part of that statement though is that "Love without truth is hypocrisy". I am of the firm belief that homosexuality is a sin that must be addressed--not pondered. If next month, the mostly liberal research halls of medicine were to identify a "homosexual" gene, it would not change the truth that this type of behavior is sinful.

I agree with McClaren's sincere questions of how to deal with those who are engaged in this lifestyle. What I do not understand is why he has so many questions about a lifestyle that he has not taken a position on.

The peace of God be with you, Brian. As a Canadian who values your books and your ministry and who weeps for the horrible distortions of Scripture and Christian life continually perpetrated by American "conservative" Christians, I see little positive future in the kinds of hidebound Christianity spewed out by your "biblical" critics. They take a consistently unpleasant and prideful higher ground which is not justified. Their biblical understandings are profoundly shallow and do grave injustice to the intergrity of God's word and the redeeming Gospel of Jesus Christ. People have attempted to introduce this kind of American Christian thinking (or, more precisely, lack thereof, into Canada - thankfully with very little success.

To you, Brian, I say don't grow weary in the service of a gracious, loving and very present God among us who, as my congregation affirms each Sunday, "can do more than we can ask or imagine".

Thanks for your attempts to answer these people, but you're dealing with people who have their minds made up and have theological systems to protect. It's tragic when those who claim to minister in the name of Christ put theological systems ahead of ministry to people.

I continue to pray for the thorough reformation of American Christianity - and indeed for "The Next Reformation" as a whole. That Reformation is coming and it is inevitable. Praise God!

as "patience is a virtue," it doesn't come easy.
So, Thank You for walking that difficult road. Truly, I'm blessed to benefit from your pateint struggle with issues and with the varied responses here. You've displayed "pastoral" care even in that, which to me sheds further light on the "issue" at hand. You've been "quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger" ...
So, you do try live this stuff out, huh?! It is distinctly meaningful amidst these tough dialogues.

thanks.

The International fundamentalist movement has been searching for their next evangelical spokesman - Mark Driscoll has stepped up to assume the legacy of Swaggart,Falwell and Robertson.

Disagreeing is fine

Being mean isn't

I can't help but hear the pharisee in "homo evangelicals" and other even more unseemly comments fortunately deleted not by Driscoll but by the editors of the magazinse who failed to tell Brian the "rules of engagement" and who thus themselves fall dangerously close to appearing to have "set him up".

I have an idea- Mark since you are so young and inexperienced why don't you spend 5 years listening and then if you still hold the same positions - fire away

Brian McLaren is

Wow. So much talk of (homo)sexuality as so central to our faith, and yet there appears to be around 3000 verses making an unequivocable statement aobut God's concerns over poverty and justice, and yet these things just don't come close to making the same impact on N.American Christianity. All the passion, vile, and disagreements do nothing but distract us from what God (and others) are really crying out for in this beautiful creation of his. Oh, and I'm not even a liberal...

Brian,

I just read you're article on homosexuality and was really shocked that we would even fight over such an issue. Sin is Sin, no matter how you put it. Yes we are ALL sinful people, and do things our own way and not the Lords. But i think it's SO important that WE as Christians and followers of JESUS CHRIST have a stand on things that are right and wrong. Homosexuality is a SIN! I don't know why people don't seem to understand that...doesn't anyone read their Bible's anymore. Read in Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 23:18-19...this talks about male prostitutes and looking at the history of male prostitution, thay were usually homosexuals (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Religious_prostitution). So as you can see, we shouldn't always think that "Love" is the answer to this or all these other sins...we as Christians have to point out these sins WITH LOVE and Pray that these people who are homosexuals and come to our churches will give up this sin and lay it into Jesus' hands. We can accept the people YES...BUT we SHOULDN'T accept the SIN!! Man Jesus was SO honest about His opinions on imoprtant issues like this...why in the world are we as Christians becoming more and more "Wishy-Washy" and scared to stand up for what is right and pure in the Lord's eyes. It's just SO sad......I don't know how anyone could fight this argument anymore, Pray about it and ask the Lord what His opinion is.

I was 19 and a freshman at a college. I was a Christian and had been reading the Bible and hearing conservative Bible teaching since elementary school. Still, I stumbled. I started to date a non-Christian girl. One evening while alone with her in my dorm room I gave in to my desires and we had a type of sex. After she left I was overwhelmed with guilt. I stayed up all night praying. The Spirit was telling me I had to break up with her. But my emotions were all entangled and my flesh wanted more. I stayed up all night long praying and struggling with conflicting thoughts. First thing in the morning I went straight to the pastor of the college department at the church I was attending. I knew I needed help.

I confessed my sins but also explained how I loved this girl and didn’t want to hurt her. I asked if I should break up with her. The college pastor said, no I didn’t have to break up with her. And so I didn’t. At least not until after a year of much more sexual entanglement and damage to my soul and hers. Twenty years later I still sometimes pray for God to heal the damage I caused.

Who was wrong? Most of all me. The Holy Spirit was clearly telling me to break up with the girl, but I listened to my flesh. I also listened to that pastor. At a time when I desparately needed his help to get out of a sinful snare, his false counsel served to ensnare me more. Later this pastor divorced his wife and left the ministry. May God forgive him and have mercy on him wherever he is today.

I fear that Brian’s teaching about “the homosexual question” will have the same effect on some of his readers that the college pastor’s bad counsel had on me. Imagine a Christian who has just barely began to fall into homosexual sin. They know it is wrong, or at least they think they do. But part of them (their flesh) doesn’t want to believe it is wrong. Then they read Brian’s article. Or they hear a pastor giving counsel which mimics Brian’s article. All of a sudden they’re not sure any more that the Bible really does say homosexuality is always wrong. And then they’re trapped. God have mercy.

This is one reason that we must NOT tolerate teaching from a brother who calls himself a Christian pastor but whose teachings mislead people into sexual sin:

“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.” – Jesus (Revelation 2:20, NIV)

What I don't get is all this debate and time, and attention to a subject. Some are spending literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure the "church" in America is clear about their stance on homosexuality. This goes for abortion too. Am I pro-life and anti-gay rights? Sure, but am I willing to throw money, time, etc at it to prove some religious point? Jesus never acted this way. Why does the church? Look at the story of Zaccheus. Did Jesus say, "Hey you sinner, turn and repent or burn!" No, of course not, he met him where he was in life and said follow him. He did this over and over again. Follow me, not condemn them for their "sins". The bottom line is the church is supposed to be about making a life that follows and reflects Jesus. And for the most part, the church is failing in this role. Right or wrong, in the end does it really matter? Love God, Love Others, not judge and condemn others then tell them they are sinners and going to hell if they dont repent. Spend our time and monies on ending poverty in our towns, states, country, and world. That is where our focus should be. Not who is correct about a certain sin or way of life. Following Hard after Jesus. That is the ultimate goal.

I was shocked by the venom, and frankly locker room tone of the earlier exchange regarding Brian's post. This one is more thoughtful. I for one am very, very glad for Brian emulating compassion and complexity in approaching homosexuality. While my position is diametrically opposite to most of the people on this blog, it is refreshing to hear Brian weigh the issue with the task of loving gay people and the broader church in mind. Thank you!

If scripture were so clear then everybody would agree, no? What if it is VERY clear on essentials (there's that modernist term again) but not on non-essentials?

Well it is. Love God and love others AS YOURSELF. Done.

The really hard part is loving others as myself. That's what I struggle with. And when scripture doesn't make sense, then I go back to this. When in doubt, love. I must imagine that other person as being my own image in the mirror.

Jesus showed this loving others approach to be very powerful. It powerfully attracks the downtrodden and it will powerfully get you crucified.

Be glad when others insult you in His name. Why? because you force us to take a look at ourselves in that mirror.

Brian, did you read this one:

[As another real live gay man...I have only one thing to add.

McLaren 1
Driscoll 0

(And Driscoll did stand in the temple and say, thank God I'm not like those [gay] sinners).

Lance
Perth, Australia.]

Check out Lance's website. He's promoting homosexual culture around the world.

Now, just where do you think Lance is going to spend eternity? Give it some thought. Maybe it will help you take a stand somewhere in all this.

Why does Driscoll care what McLaren thinks about homosexuality? Why does he want an answer? Is it truly out of lovenad to build community or is it to draw line that separates and divides.

BTW, sarcasm means to "tear flesh". MD you may use scripture to justify sarcasm but if you know the One who has had his flesh torn for you transgressions you may not be so willing to tear the flesh of others.

I am with Mark:

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

Please answer us, Brian. That's all we "bible thumpers" want is real answers. I am a believer who is looking to the Christian leaders of today to help me find answers, and I'm not sure if I'm ready to take "I don't know" as an answer.

Brian,

I wish I could take the sting out of the comments I see on here. I cannot believed how polarized the church has become. How I long for peace and gentleness among the followers' of Jesus. Brian, thank you for your kindness toward those who disagree with you. Thank you for showing hope to the unchurched that they just might fit in somewhere. Thank you for not being afraid of letting some questions go unanswered for the sake of a pure pastoral response. I am glad the Holy Spirit is big enough to guide each of us sinners into all truth. He IS big enough!

Mark Driscoll-
I'm not sure it's actually that important for Brian to answer your pointed question. It's as if Brian is being accused of being a sell-out for simply not wishing to express his personal views. Considering the weight that people place on his words, I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to be under that pressure, especially on such a loaded issue. If he says something and it turns out, in our hindsight 20 years from now, to be wrong, that's a heavy load to carry. You yourself might consider the weight of a leader's responsibility not to mislead their generation.

The homosexuality issue is hot right now, so everyone wants to know where everyone else stands. It was very much the same way with divorce in our more conservative churches a few decades ago (at least in my tribe). Some people were excommunicated (or the Protestant equivalent thereof), others were encouraged to leave, and others were pushed into divorcing their second spouse in order to attempt reconciliation with the first.

What do you hear about divorce now? Do churches issue official statements about their policy on divorce? Are church leaders required to make their personal stance known, at the risk of being called wishy-washy and unbiblical? No. It's not discussed. I don't know why, and I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing, but I do know it's not discussed. And no one complains.

Can we move on?

Fascinating. It seems the image we are made in is like a shattered mirror.

When we look into one another's eyes, some of us are inclined to see the broken shards first, and remark at their horrid pattern. After a time, we may not a reflection in the mirror.

Others of us are inclined to see the image reflected first, and only then to note the misaligned and maligned glass that reflects.

I'd rather live the latter way. It promotes hope and redemption, it seems to me. It is Jesus looking into the eyes of the woman in the dust and not seeing a prostitute – but rather a broken daughter of God, whose image was ripe for redemption.

I have dealt with homosexuals on a pastoral level, a friendship level, and even on a roommate level. Those of us who take the traditional position on homosexuality have a lot to learn about ministry to those who struggle with it. Reading this discussion board though I've decided Brian McLaren and the Emerging Movement isn't the person or place to learn it from. Two points to that effect: the first short, the second of some length.

First: to the "you can't be selectively literalist" crowd posting here. Conservative exegesis on these texts is overall a lot more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for whether you're speaking of Don Carson, William Webb, Rob Gagnon, Richard Hays, or N.T. Wright (the latter three of whom aren't inerrantists BTW). The point is this. Yes we have to apply Scripture to today's situation, but if we have even a half-orthodox Doctrine of Scripture we dare not do violence to the meaning Revealed in the original context in which the words were written. That's just what the revisionist attempts to re-interpret the homosexuality texts do. If you're conservative, theologically-speaking, enough to believe that God was sovereign over those original contexts, that's a no-brainer.

Second: I know I'm going to come across as some fundamentalist meanie (I'm not the former and I hope I'm not the latter) but Brian McLaren scares me. It isn't his ambiguity on the question of homosexuality that worries me so much as it is his reckless passion for ambiguity in the first place, and his utter fear that someone, anyone, will take offense for any reason; the larger disease of which the first is a symptom.

It's often noted that you could reconstruct most of the New Testament without manuscripts just by using the church fathers. If you tried to reconstruct the main themes of the NT, or even just the gospels from McLaren's writing I wonder if you would ever know just how often Jesus mentioned hell and judgement, and that he took sin seriously enough that the plucking out of eyes and the severing of hands were appropriate metaphors for dealing with it. Or, horror of horrors, that He would claim "all *authority* in heaven and on earth is given to me." Authority entails obedience, obedience entails things to be done and not to be done and that someone might actually be there to enforce it; realities McLaren seems to have singular problems with; at least in any concrete way. And then there's Paul. One would never guess from McLaren that doing church occasionally means handing some "over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."

The bottom line is that holiness mattered to those who mattered in the New Testament, not least to Jesus himself. What's interesting, and frightening, to me is that McLaren is worried sick about offending somebody, anybody, and everybody; liberals and conservatives; crips and bloods. Whoever and whatever. But he says precious little about offending God and his holiness, and the dangers of which ought to be scripturally clear if anything is. Given the matter at hand it ought to be more of a concern. That it's not confirms and deepens my doubts about McLaren and the movement he is identified with.

I don't know if I am more saddened by McClaren's inability to believe anything or the number of folks who think this is a good thing. It proves to me that evangelicalism is dying. If numerous scripture passages aren't enough to at least say something is wrong, one would hope that 2000 years of consistent interpretation of scripture would at least help. But if Bible is continually ripped away from the consensus of church history in a quest for relevance, then Evangelical Christianity will cease to be Christianity. It will become just another viewpoint in the smorgasborg of pluralism.

I believe Driscoll cares about what McLaren stated because Driscoll actually cares about the young ministers of today.

McLaren and Driscoll are both major influencers. What they say today has much bearing on how most Christians will think [and act] for the next 20 years or more, whether we admit that or not.

For all of Driscoll's complaining about Emergent, he hasn't let go [totally] of the emerging church. Driscoll believes this is the future of the Church and wants to see it go in a direction thsat honors God.

So, when someone with the theological wieght of Brian McLaren speaks on a touchy subject like homosexuality, Driscoll listens and cares what is said. And when he percieves that the central questions of God and homosexuality are not answered directly, correction must come.

I'm not trying to make either a saint or the devil, they are simply human and they both deeply care about the future of the Church in the world, as do must of us commenting here.

So, when the questions arises: is any of this worth it? I think the answer is yes.

I'm not sure why it's important for Brian to clarify his position (yay or nay) on this issue -- it seems to me that he's done a much harder thing, which is challenge his brothers and sisters to look at the people behind the sin ... before labelling positions or taking sides. I really liked how he said it's not an issue of us/them, but one of we/we. That's huge, and not something to be missed -- just because we're so busy trying to figure would which position he takes on the issue.

Thanks, Brian, for sticking your neck out (again) on such a touchy issue amongst some pretty contentious "friends."

Rick said:

---------------------------------
Why does Driscoll care what McLaren thinks about homosexuality? Why does he want an answer? Is it truly out of lovenad to build community or is it to draw line that separates and divides.

BTW, sarcasm means to "tear flesh". MD you may use scripture to justify sarcasm but if you know the One who has had his flesh torn for you transgressions you may not be so willing to tear the flesh of others.

Posted by: rick at January 30, 2006 09:46 PM
-------------------------

From one rick to another, maybe you should ask Paul why he would care what the believers and leaders in Corinth and other churches believed about circumcission and other such issues? Come on! One of the key responsibilities of being a pastor is to give and take the "urging of good doctrine" and the "exposing of bad doctrine" as a responsibility for leadership (Titus 1:9).

Please give up your "tearing flesh" thing--you're making the assumption that we all agree with your etymological preference. You just don't like sarcasm...we get it. Tear out the parts of scripture where the writeres are being sarcastic if it pleases you. I'm out...

First - Brian, thanks again for making me think. And thank you for not telling me WHAT to think, but HOW. May God continue to use you to challenge us all, and I pray that He will bless you THiS day.

Second - this may seem really minor, but I'm getting frustrated with people using 1 Peter 3:15 to try to force McLaren to state his stance on homosexuality publicly. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason fo the hope that you have." It doesn't say anywhere about . We must be ready to say why we have HOPE, but we don't have to be ready to make a public declaration regarding our views. This verse isn't calling believers to be know-it-alls!! I know for certain that Christ has redeemed me and made me a new creation, and THAT is what I need to be ready to explain to anybody who asks.

Luke,

Looking for answers? Don't like the answer, "I don't know?" Why? Part of the issue is that folks want to draw the line and have ANSWERS.
Won't work.

Don't worry so much about homosexuality. Worry about how you can put your life on the line for them.

Risk following Jesus. Lay your reputation and what you know on the line. Invite them to the table, become real friends with them the same way Jesus did those the conservative "Torah watches" did in his day.

When your friends and church reject you for the way you have loved and welcomed "sinners" and they question your sexuality and faith based on how you love those they easily hate, then you will know that you have walked with Jesus.

I'll meet you on the edge of town.

A conclusion I've come to:
Commenting on Blogs is the absolute worst way to have a discussion like this. To much room for assumption. Very little grace is extended. Misunderstandings abound.

Leadership Journal- this is all happening on your site. Is this what you were hoping for? Are you pleased? Are you going to contribute to the conversation in ways you see fit, beyond deleting a few comments? Do you see any of this as your responsability?

i don't know if we agree on the issues discussed (I'm speaking to Mark Riddle), but ditto to your statement. Are we really this bored? Have we really been this deterred from mission? >sigh

1 Timothy 1:6

BTW...I think our boredome is why we even see fit to discuss a sin that has been decidedly understood as sin in church history...too bored, so we have to have a rediculous "conversation" that never ends. >sigh

Reading through these posts, I am beginning to think that Professor Blomberg's questions regarding the appropriateness of Blogs should be more closely considered. This whole thread is really quite sad. Not that the topic is sad (which it is, since it divides the Body and blocks some from salvation), but the discourse itself.

What is amazing is that Jeff's post ( Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 2 ) asks some really good questions. Yet it barely garnered any response. His third point regarding the prominence of where we "speak truth" is an excellent point and one I am forced to think through. But it appears that thoughtful reflection is not highly valued amongst many (but not all) posters.

Brian just because we do not execute people for certain acts of sinfulness does not negate the reality of the sin. David was an adulterer and adultery is always wrong. Just because God did not slay him does not mean that David was okay on that one, it simply means that God is sovereign and choose mercy on whom he will. I can still hold to the standard of Leviticus concerning homosexuality without exacting the judgment Leviticus call for. To negate the Bible’s stance on sin based upon consequence to the individual is an error we cannot afford to make in our culture.

As a student of history we might also think through an honest history of homosexuality, its impact upon various cultures of the ancient world, its use in pagan practices, its non-productive outcome, and its deviant tendencies and conclude that homosexuality is not a design of creation. I think we can also say this about any sexual activity outside of husband and wife. (Maybe God was on to something there in creation)

We can look at Jewish and Christian history and see that the practice of homosexual relations has always been outside the scope of God’s peoples understanding and acceptance of sexual design.

It sometimes seems we let ourselves get confused as to the truth or clarity of a standard because of the difficulty of the issue. This difficulty prompts us to search for alternative interpretations that offer us a sliver of wiggle room from an historical and biblical understanding of scripture. This is a simplistic description of many mainline churches stance on homosexuality, the authority of scripture, the view of a historical Jesus and such. Brian, I am not accusing of this.

I did understand that your article was on the “rightness” of our response and the “we” was big enough for differing views. However in my own shortsightedness I keep thinking you are alluding to a standard that is different than historical and, in my mind, biblical understanding on the issue of homosexuality. I also keep thinking your reasons for this possibly differing view are not the truthfulness of scripture but the difficulty of the issue. I can relate to the painfulness this causes in a pastors heart. If my understanding is wrong please forgive me and feel free to correct me too.

Finally, I am glad we do not execute adulterers, homosexuals and rebellious kids anymore. But just because we don’t, doesn’t mean that God moved the standard of right and wrong on these issues. In one very real sense God executed His son instead of the offenders so that we as God’s people can bring a message of repentance, freedom, forgiveness and ultimate love to anyone trapped in the web of behavior and belief homosexuality brings. Our culture is no friend to the homosexual because it perpetuates that web of behavior and belief; the church should be, by offering a standard that dispels the belief in the wrapping of grace that carefully untangles the web, setting people free.

Brian, thank you for modeling a gracious vocabulary.

Mark (and MANY others), thank you for exhibiting the bankruptcy of a pharisaical vocabulary. Your approach feels more like an inquisition than a genuine search for the truth.

To me, this is about whether we have the freedom to ask our questions out loud without being harpooned by zealots. I appreciate Brian's commitment to raising the questions and it saddens me whenever he is crucified for doing so.

We must always be aware that neither Jesus nor Paul always disagreed in sweet and pleasant to the ear tones or words. I think the very fact that we are discussing the issue of homosexuality with the seemingly "underlying tone" of its acceptabilty and need for tolerated says a great deal about the spiritual condition of the visible church in this hour. Many of you must be aware of the reality of a great apostacy in the latter days when some will depart from "the" faith and sound doctrine. None of this surprises or troubles me. Admittedly it is sad but only affirms my belief that Christs return must be very near

Thanks Brian. I'm discovering however that the "Blog world" leaves much to be desired. Reading between the lines is neither honest nor kind.

For all the difficulty and sadly-vitrolic exchange that Brian's essay has raised, I am happy to see it going on. We are Christ's Body, and it is simply our job to have difficult conversations like this, for the sake of the world around us which is even more confused than we are. I applaud Brian for raising the issue and persisting in civility, even in the midst of people who respond with such fear/anger to the mere raising of the question. This conversation may last another century or two, but they don't call it "carrying your cross" because it's easy.

In the time it's taken to read and write these blogs people have died of AIDS, hunger, disease etc.

The Emergent Church is not real and will pass. All these arguements will have no meaning once Jesus asks you, "Why did you waste your time arguing with no conclusion when all I wanted you to do was care for the less fortunate?"

What we gonna blog when He asks that one?

As a 24 year old minister in training, no, not even that, just as a sister in Christ. . . the more I've backtracked, read the articles, the responses, the comments, the stronger the sickening feeling in my stomach grows. Not so much due to the differing opinions but as to the general sense given off by some of the commentary. I'm disappointed by some comments made here. Some of the most heated comments are hypotheses based on a long string of assumptions about what Brian may or may not believe, and how he may or may not have handled the particular situation with the couple described (which cannot be completely known from the small snippet of time described in the article, provided for example and not exhaustive doctrine), and how he may or may not handle similar situations and questions in the future. I hear a lot of opposition to theological perspectives Brian has not committed to in this article, and based on the assumption that Brian holds said perspectives, people have gone on to criticize his character, the way he pastors, his interpretation of the Bible, his colleagues, etc. And yes, he is criticized for not taking a position to begin with, even though he also states he has been not just exploring the issue, but agonizing over it. He is criticized for admitting that he doesn't have it all figured out because it goes beyond just knowing one's stance on homosexuality (and many other topics) and into one's application of that stance.
It seems like I learned somewhere back in grade school that there is a main point to an essay or article, and that the author usually focuses on that point. As far as I can tell, the main point of the article was not to reach a decision or state a personal conviction about homosexuality, neither for himself personally nor those he represents and has influence over, but about pastoring and how to handle difficult questions and situation that we often face in church leadership. How to listen first before responding (not necessarily not responding at all). How many actions those in the church have taken have done damage in the past and we need to be cautious (not necessarily remaining inactive). He made some suggestions about how to be cautious (in which I did not see to stop thinking, stop praying, stop reading the Bible, stop pastoring, or stop having an opinion on the issue). Yes, maybe a moratorium, just a suggestion (while also stating to remain in dialogue within the church at an attempt to reach some sort of unity).
So yes, comment on the act of pastoring through the tougher issues. Comment on listening. Be challenged to think about what you would have done or what you are currently doing. Comment on some of the suggestions made. Yes, there were a lot of questions raised by the particular issue discussed. Yes, he could have said more. He decided not to in the original article, and now you've heard his response. Just please don't miss the point of what he was trying to say about leading and pastoring others. The actual point.
Grow up. This is not an excuse to take out personal frustrations with a particular church leader, his body of work, his perspectives, his philosophy of church, his friends and colleagues, and so on. If you want to do that, start your own blog. Write Brian an email or letter. He is a brother in Christ and a human being, something not to be taken lightly but something we take all too lightly when we can sit here at our computers and type out our electronic frustrations and (mostly) may never face the person.
I like discussion. I like reading comments (most of the time). Controversy is fine and is a good thing. And yes, these opinions do not happen in a vacuum and there are previous doings and sayings that can be brought into the mix.
It would be nice, however, if in a particular context such as this comments would actually be based on what was originally written and not just a lot of assumptions, reactivism, bad blood, bitterness, self-righteousness, and a lack of (ironically) careful listening (or, in this case, reading). No matter what you happen to believe about homosexuality and the church or any other particular issue you could find to discuss.

Well, we all know Mr. McLaren can write very engaging 'words' on the page. However, I don't know what he is writing... I think the Beltway may have exerted too much influence on Mr. McLaren... he sounds just like a politician who pretends to be saying something but isn't really saying anything at all. I think it is definitely appropriate to learn to keep communication lines open between people (which is essentially what I think he is trying to say)... but you can keep open communication without abandoning church teaching on homosexuality (which has been amazingly consistent since the church's inception).

Let's simplify the discussion... what do you think Jesus would say to man caught in homosexuality? Do you think he would treat him like an outsider? Do you think he would affirm that person in that lifestyle? If we believe that homosexual is equivalent in sins to adultery, don't you think that we need to follow Jesus and BOTH accept the person (he who is without sin, cast the first stone) AND encourage purity (go and sin no more).

What is so difficult about reflecting the truth in love? Have we come so far where we have to mask the truth in the interests of politics? Have we forgotten that the power of the Christian message is its hard-hitting but freeing message of truth AND love? Why do we think can't have both?

Do we somehow think we can no longer be relevant to homosexuals if we don't believe in their lifestyles? Jesus didn't partake in tax collection, prostitution, showy acts of religion, etc... but yet he truly spoke and still speaks to the hearts of any type of person.

Brian's response his is more gracious that we should have expected. I think it's a great model for us all to follow regardless of positions or doctrines. If we all entered into discussion with this level of mercy we would get alot more accomplished.

Thank you Brian, for this amazing response!

Very cool, the 100th comment. I simply want to encourage everyone to consider that this is not just some "issue" that we are talking about, but this should in fact be about people / children of God / humanity. I think it is important for us to begin, first and foremost, to consider those who this "issue" affects - those who are being denied their humanity and the gift to be able to live and experience the life that Jesus came to give.

>

I have had the privilege of doing just that the past twenty years--befriending, relating to, and discipling gays and other men and women who sin sexually. They need the same things any other person needs, but they look out at us from the bottom of a deep well dug by years of (real or perceived) ill-treatment. Our message of truth and grace is suspect to many of them, for they have been almost killed by the letter of the law and/or offered a patronizing tolerance that minimizes their pain, both attitudes offered from a distance without the warmth of human connection that is the root of their need.
As the scripture says, we have spoken peace peace when there is no peace; we have treated the wounds of the people as slight. It takes more time for them to trust us, while it takes time for us to live down the reputation we carry (sometimes deserved) for condemning or offering simplistic solutions for complex relational issues.
In the end, if we hope to befriend, relate to, and disciple gays, we must prove ourselves a true friend, commit for the long haul and attempt to compromise neither grace or truth. A gargantuan task, impossible for us, praise God it is He that is in us that will make all this possible.

Mary Heathman
www.wheregraceabounds.org

I too believe that this is a good conversation to have, even with the limits of the genre. Exercising discernment, iron sharpening iron, probing thinking: these are all good and healthy for the body of Christ, and blogging enables people to speak to one another who'll never meet in real life. I found this post by David Wayne on how to have a good argument, and commend it to all as guidelines for our speech, good reading for those who think that the anonymity of blogging makes for a good chance to flame others.

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2006/01/some_thoughts_o.html

And on the subject, I must agree that Mark is right in asking Brian the simple question; as one said, both of these men are hugely influential of a new era of pastors, and while Brian's spirit and some of his instincts are right-on, I for one find his ambiguity pretty maddening. We can call for the same Christlike spirit for which Brian calls while at the same time taking stances in line with Scripture; we can be open to modifying our positions without being afraid to actually express them; we can be humble without being so ambiguous as to leave everyone wondering what we think. Brian can do everyone a service, I think, by acting on Mark's request.

Wow, it's amazing how much this little series has stirred up so much! I, for one, thank you Brian for writing this and for gently pushing us to think more pastorally as well as biblically. I totally got your first article and really didn't see what all the fuss was about. I think you posed some great questions and have caused us to stop and think, like a good article should.

Please Brian - don't 'pick an answer', 'chose a side', 'go left, go right, go center'.

That is not what you set out to do and say, and to push you do to so would defeat the wisdom of what you have said so far. I hear from you that this is far more complex than many of us are willing to admit, this has so many dimensions and levels of pastoral response that it is a wonder why anyone looks to the church at all for an 'answer'. It's not about answers - Jesus didn't always answer people, he asked questions and told stories. The story Brian told in his first article was the HEART of why this is so complex - if we give in to easy, quick answers, we've missed the point altogether.
I don't care if Brian ever answers Driscoll's question - because it can only be used to hurt him all around, AND because it just isn't the point.

I am sure that this comment will be lost in the flurry of all the others and go largely unnoticed, but I feel quite strongly that this needs to be said.

So many of you are quick to say, "The Bible is clear on this," or "Church tradition is incredibly consistent here." This comment is intended specifically for those of you who feel that way.

Church tradition has been incredibly consistent on some issues in the past and have turned out to be incredibly wrong (read: slavery). While tradition is important and meaningful, it is not above reproach.

The issue here is largely what the Bible says-- but in an effort to maintain the integrity of our Biblical teaching, to follow the Bible "to the letter", we have lost a very important element-- the human element. Consider for a moment that 1 in 3 teenage suicides are connected to depression over homosexuality. Homosexuality has, in the past, been understood as acts committed by generally heterosexual people. Today, we know that there IS such a thing as a homosexual. The question that the church has to deal with is what to do with the homosexual person: Are they to function as heterosexuals, despite lack of inclination or desire? Or should we simply resign them all to lifelong celibacy? This is a very real issue that affects many, many people in our churches-- probably more than you know, because most are afraid to admit it.

My point comes down to this: The issue with the position the church typically takes on homosexuality is not just that it is "difficult" or "challenging", but that it is actually causing pain in people's life, oftentimes leading to suicide and depression. Does Truth look like this? Try talking to a real life homosexual who has tried to figure out how that fits into their faith. Talk to them about failed efforts to change, about fruitless relationships with the opposite sex that were forced and dishonest, talk about the misery of loneliness from celibacy and see if this adherence to orthodox doctrine sounds like peace that passes all understanding. This question is on the table not because we just want to justify sin, but because the old position is, oftentimes, causing a lot of pain.

This does not necessarily justify homosexual behavior-- there is much more evidence to be considered here, Biblical included. All I am saying is: Don't devalue this issue, or the lives of the people who are caught up in it. As much nicer as it might make the situation, this is not as simple as, "The Bible says its wrong, so don't do it." Consider the human element, because that is what Christ did--sometimes to the point of breaking the letter of the law.

Whether or not any of us agree with Brian, we HAVE to admit that sarcasm, name-calling, and belittling others is non-Christian. How can we pretend like we're more biblical than anyone when we use the truths of the bible to beat people up in a way that directly contradicts the teachings about how Christians interact with other human beings.

We also have to admit that Mark Driscoll is extremely sarcastic and opinionated and cynical. Those are NOT fruits of the Spirit.

Who was it that said: "If God is dead, you can justify any lifestyle?"
It seems we have "literally" killed God. Sadly, people would be more upset that I would say homosexuality is sin than that God is dead. It does seem that God is dead and that man is now on the throne. What we think and how we feel is center stage. Therapy rather than truth is the prescription. If we make truth a mystery beyond comprehension believable, then we have just dethroned truth and taken it's place. Truth is no longer authoritative, we are.
Christianity is then measured by our ability to make much of one another. To never offend, hurt, slight, accuse, correct, admonish.....etc. I believe that is what's happening here. Truth is beyond understanding and Man has become god....homosexuality? Just a distraction from far worse sin.

First a disclaimer. I'm not a pastor. I've not had any formal seminary training. I speak on this issue as someone who has grown up in the church (both tradiitonal and now an evangelical "megachurch") while in a constant struggle with my sexual orientation. At almost 22 years old, I've still got a lot left to sort out. I have never acted on my attractions with another man, nor do I intend to. I look forward to the day that God heals me of this and I can marry a Godly woman and be the husband she deserves. I refuse to consider attending certain traditional denominations because I feel they are too lax on homosexuality. However, I still endorse the message Pastor McLaren offers here.
I agree one can (and must) stand firm on the morality. I have no doubt in my mind that homosexual acts are wrong. To me, God clearly establishes marriage as the union of man and woman. All sex that occurs outside that, whether man with woman, man with man, woman with woman, or anything in between is wrong. There is, though, nothing more inherently sinful in homosexual sex than any other extra-marital sex.
This last point is important, and this is where Pastor McLaren's points come in. There is more issue. It is complicated, messy, and destructive. We cannot go into this sayign our approach to dealing with it is the right way. He is right in not telling us his opinion on this issue. We shouldn't believe one thing or another just becuase he says it. We shoudl beleive it because our own reasoning, prayer, and faith has led us there.
I think we need to realize that everyone will respond to different things, and there is an equal need for all perspectives on this issue. Some people respond to a firm stance and open, honest opinion on the sinfullness of acting on the behavior. I don't deny the usefullness of it.
But please understand it doesn't work for everyone. I grew up in the church. I know this is wrong. I've always known it. But hearing it again doesn't help. I've also had prior problems with suicidal depression, and much of that comes from internalizing all the homophobia I've been hearing for so many years. I am looking for support and affirmation. I'm needed to hear that I'm not some freak or pervert that's too dirty for anyone to even look at. Being reminded of something I already know; how sinful acting on these feelings is only reinforces that idea.
I've had friendships fall apart because people can't handle the thought that I have this attraction. I should add, though, that the most amazing expressions of God's love have come from the brothers and sisters in my church who have accepted me with open arms. It is those people that got me through the depression. It is because of them that I've continued to attend this church with no interest in looking for another one.
I agree that many Christians focus on not just homosexuality, but sex in general is misplaced. No we should not endorse it. No we should not condone it. Yes, when asked by our congregants for advice, we should be ready to answer truthfully (but only after some sort of interview like above - not so we can change the messsage being presented, but the presentation of the message). However let's understand grace here, and getting into heaven.
I don't care if a non Christian has sex outside of marriage. Never lusting or fornicating your entire life is not gonna get you into heaven. If we truly believe in salvation by faith alone, we need to communicate better.
Within the church, there is a definite need and obligation for accountability. And we should not disguise what God's laws are. However, we should use them to show the wonder of his grace, not because we are trying to tell someone what to do.
I realize I've not specifically mentioned a lot in Pastor McLaren's post, but I think I'm in step with the message he has, and that message is definitely one the church needs to hear. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but these are questions we need to ponder.
Let's not forget that our God is one who invites and welcomes questioning. When Thomas doubted, Jesus did not rebuke his lack of faith, but responded (literally and figuratively) with open arms. Our God is the one who says, "ask and you shall receive, knock and the door will be opened." What has done the most for my faith is constant questioning of everything I believe, because on closer and closer examination, I contniue to see God there, and I emerge with a stronger belief in it than ever.

mark riddle said " Commenting on Blogs is the absolute worst way to have a discussion like this."

mark is a friend but i do think there is value here and i take my hat off to Leadership Journal for their boldness in allowing feedback.

i know that a face to face conversation might allow a more wholistic encounter (with time, facial gestures, etc) but i have never seen a room with such a radically different set of people.

And doing a series rather than a single post spreads it out a bit more. There seems to be enough self-correction going on to warrant their hands off approach.

Leadership Journal - you got yourself a REAL blog!

What a sad, sarcastic post from a Chriatian leader of Make Driscoll's stature and fame. McLaren's comments were fair and real to those of us who want to open the doors of God's reconcilliation and love to people of all sexual persuasions and those of us who are straight but know people who are too threatned to go near a church because of gay people we know. The Bible is certainly clear about homosexuality and mentions it 5 times. It is also clear about love and forgiveness and mentions them 70 x 7. Andrew

Living in a world where we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" in the relationship between truth and love.

Be devoted to the biblical truth? Amen.
So--most here would agree that the answer to Mark Driscoll's question would be yes, all such activity is sinful.

Be more devoted to living out the truth in a way that draws sinners to Christ? Even more strongly, Amen!

How many of us came to Christ as adults? That is, now followers of Jesus but not brought up as a child within the church. How did you come to Christ?

Can we all agree to be humble about the fact that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness and salvation? Can we all agree that compassion is not compromise? Can we all agree that "mercy triumphs over judgment"?

Find the more difficult but more faithful path.
Avoid the "Those people are going to hell, and aren't we glad!" bit, please. Weep for the lost. Give everything to share Jesus with the lost. And join with all the other sinners around us to become more like Jesus as we pray, live, struggle and rely on the Holy Spirit to set us free from whatever particular sin we need set free from--never losing sight of the promise that we have already been set free from all sins' power over us because Jesus already paid the price, and because Jesus is alive!!

RE: Brian's original post (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html) (I will be responding to the other post's as well)
There seems to be a bit of confusion on terminology. I actually AGREE with Brian in his statement that homosexuality in itself is NOT sin. Before throwing a bucket full of stones my way, let me explain. Similar to how the Eskimos (Iniut) have many names for snow, us in Ex-gay ministry have several terms to specifically deliniate homosexuality. We use the term "Same Sex Attraction" (SSA) to describe the set of feelings and attractions an individual has towards ones own gender. The attraction is NOT sin any more than a heterosexual attraction to someone other than one's spouse is sinful. A layman may call this "attraction" under the umbrella of "homosexuality" and then further label all "homosexuality" as SIN. This is NOT the case. The bible is clear that homosexual ACTS are sinful as are any sexual ACTS outside a heterosexual marriage. The bible is also clear that sexual LUSTS (hetero- or homo-) are sinful as well. The bible is also clear that there is NOT a "pecking order" for sin. As Brian alludes to, the church has yet to figure out HOW do we love the sinner and hate the sin at the SAME level we do all other sins. There is still too much fear and misunderstanding at the local church level to allow much "loving of the sinner" to actually take place. It is a rarety to see any actual love taking place towards SSA strugglers. When was the last time any of you Chrisitan leaders had an outreach to strugglers? Was it truly in love, or did it merely look similar to the "God hates f**s" Church that is ever-present at pro-gay events. Brian shows a sensitivity that is a rarity in the local church.

With much love,
Alan Levering, Director and Founder
NCXDS Ex-Gay Christian Internet Ministries
Http://geocities.com/exgaylinks
Ncxds@yahoo.com
(Also an active member of an "emergent-style" church)

RE: JR Rivera's Reply to Brian's orignal post (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html) dated January 24, 2006 01:45 PM
JR Riviera wrote: "I did tell him that God is seeking a relationship with him but his life style has to change and God will give him the strength to change"

One could easily infer from this that God will not get near a person UNTIL they change. As I tell many who struggle with Same-Sex Attraction, seek out God first, seek out a relationship with Him FIRST. Change will happen as a result of the relationship, not the other way around.

With much love,
Alan Levering, Director and Founder
NCXDS Ex-Gay Christian Internet Ministries
Http://geocities.com/exgaylinks
Ncxds@yahoo.com
(Also an active member of an "emergent-style" church)

As Christians, the Bible does tell us to confront one another in a "Biblical" way about our differences in the "Body of Christ". I am concerned with the issue that has been discussed on this blog. It has eternal implications for people throughout the world. I guess what disturbs me more is that Mr. Driscoll and Mr. McLaren having chosen to "air" their diferrences in this matter.

I have a 14 year old daughter who spends a lot of time on the computer sending "instant messages" back and forth with her friends. In the matter of an hour, they could have "broken up with a boyfriend", "gotten a new boyfriend", "made a movie date for Friday", and "have that date cancelled" with everyone left feeling hurt and mad. What is a major reason this happens? Because there is no personal contact. It's very easy to say whatever you want when you don't say it to the person "face-to-face" (or even over the phone).

The non-Christian world is already suspect of us. We don't need to add fuel to the fire. When they see us attacking and devouring each other, they're definitely not going to want what we've got!

Mr. Driscoll and Mr. McLaren if you have not settled your differences with each other, I encourage you to do so (in person, face-to-face, or at least "voice-to-voice").You may never agree on this issue, but I believe as Christians we can "agree to disagree" on some issues as long as we believe in the authority and saving power of Jesus in our lives. I may be "just" a children's pastor out in the middle of Oklahoma, but I believe God would want nothing less than this from 2 great leaders in "His Body".

A word to the folks who are saying that Jesus and Paul used sarcasm - it's a poor comparison. Please stop. First of all, if you've ever read any first-century rhetoric you'd know that how they spoke was mild compared to their context. In other words, as compared to their context, they showed grace. Second, let's be real - Jesus was sinless in every way, including his motivations. We do not have that same perspective - we speak with mixed motives and sinful hearts. Can we be honest and say that while harsh words can be used in love, they are more often borne of anger and malice? As to Paul, again, here is someone writing under the inspiration of the Spirit to those over whom he has apostolic authority. We can claim no such impartiality, and no such authority.

I notice that those of you arguing that harsh language is acceptable are "reinterpreting" the "clear teaching of scripture" to speak with grace and respect. Why the debate over something that is so apparent? Ironic, isn't it?

Three things stand out to me;

1. Why did Jesus not address homosexuality?
It has been apart of world history, prevalent since the begining of time as we know it. So much so that God was even willing to start fresh. ie. Noah. (Not that homosexuality was the only reason for the flood, but one of many.)
We know homosexuality was around in Jesus time, just look at Romans and 1 Corinthians, writen only shortly after Jesus assended to heaven.

2. When Jesus was asked a question more often then not he answered with a question or a story, and Not an Answer. Why is that?

3. Jesus knew the answers to many of life's great debates. He is God after all. Just imagine, what would have happened if He would have corrected humanity in all our wrongs/beliefs/opinions when he walked the earth 2000 years ago?(ie.the shape of the earth, what was the center of the solar system/galaxy/universe, and even why people are homosexuals in the first place)

Ps
Brian keep on writing, I am continously challenged by your questions.

Maybe we could save some time: Could we all agree that Driscoll is arrogant and his tone is harmful to some? Could we also agree that it might be helpful for Brian to declare himself on this issue? Then, we can all get back to our respective responsiblites and ministries

Mark
Is that really your responce?
C.S.Lewis in Mere Christianity, calls Pride the great sin.
I've watched you, listened, I even attended the Reformission conf. at Mars Hill Seattle.
I have friends and children of friends who've attended "your church" and have come to the understanding that MHS is an Emergent bate and switch. Let's play relevant with crude speach then pound 5 point dogma like some sort of neo-Bill Gothard seminar.

I've wanted to like and endorse your work but find myself sad. Step back, listen to your own words.

Jim

I'm not sure my comment is even worthwhile at this point given how many others there are.

I would just like to point out that in his original article, Brian seemed to me to be asking what the best thing to say AT THAT MOMENT was. And that required sensitivity, love, and inquiry into deeper issues. It in no way negated his personal beliefs about homosexuality or biblical standards, or even the fact that there may well BE a time and place to share his standards and perhaps confront.

Truth is best dispensed in the context of a loving relationship. This couple had no relationship with Brian at the moment, and certainly their fathers did not. But it is a far more powerful statement for Brian and the church to create an environment of welcome for the couple and their gay fathers than it is to blatantly state a truth that might cause all four of them to run the opposite direction and possibly out of the church altogether at that point in time.

We are all floundering together as we seek to emulate Christ. There are no perfect answers in this imperfect world. But I NEVER saw Christ speak the truth in such a way that shut the door in the face of an honest, inquiring person. And that, I believe, is at the heart of the matter.

Brian, I deeply respect your voice and your honest and humble attempts to be heard and understood. Thank-you.

Some justify their anger, indignation, and sarcasm by pointing to examples of Jesus' use of such.

I trust that Jesus had a handle on his motives, I don't trust that you or I do.

Some of the responses reek of pride and arrogance. Only God and the reflective individual really knows which ones have that source, but if I was a betting person I could probably make some good money guessing.

Time for brave to do some self-examination and get past it.