Sounds like some good questions to me! Especially as a seminary trained gay Christian!

Finally, Scot described the “primacy of Scripture” method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition.

I’d like to read up more on this method in particular. Does anyone know of any articles on the topic available online.

"Should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership".

I guess I am totally misunderstanding the question here. And I think I've misunderstood this in churches for a little while now. I'm not understanding the use of the word "gay" or "homosexual". Is the question asking if someone is allowed into leadership who struggles with the temptation of homosexuality but doesn't actually commit an act of homosexuality? Or are we assuming that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are people who are actively practicing this behavior?

If someone struggles with the temptation but does not give in, then allow them to lead and show the rest of us how to have that strength in our own lives as well. But if it means people who are actively participating in a homosexuality then I wouldn't say that they should have any level of leadership.

Now this doesn't mean I don't want them to come to my church. I've known many decent, good people who are practicing homosexuals. But I know I would not ask them to teach, preach, or give any sort of spiritual direction.

But why do churches always make things into a "gay" vs. "straight" issue? The places of our worship should be safe for anyone with any issues to come and feel free to connect to God. It doesn't matter whether you struggle with homosexuality or pride or jealousy. Do we all agree that people sin?

But while I write this down, I know there is someone who will disagree with me on the issue of struggling with homosexuality. Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to what other have to say.

… how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

I would think one would need to be more blatant in explaining the methodology so that people can learn how to properly use and understand scripture without a preacher always telling them. The goal would be to develop a spiritual maturity in interpreting the Bible so that people would not always have to go to their pastor to find out what they believe.

As an audience member myself (I’m not a preacher), I’d like to hear more about the people who have interpreted the Bible, how they interpreted things differently, the history that molded interpretation, and occasionally references to resources that I can use myself, not just scripture references and points “formed by the primacy of Scripture”.

Regarding accessing scripture via "the primacy of scripture" all I think he's getting at is the idea that we should try and form our practices, our thinking, our methodologies by learning from the Bible, rather than reading the Bible THROUGH all of these pre-exising categories.

The question is: what is the object being observed and what is the lens?

Scot's saying that the Bible should be the lens.

Just a note: I hope that those who comment here will read my original article, linked from the post above. As I told the audience, my reason for reading it rather than speaking ex tempore was that sometimes I'm able to be clearer and more careful when I write than when I speak, and I feel like that article did a good job of summarizing what I have to say on this subject (or at least starting the conversation). The direct quotes in this summary, however, are _not_ what I said (or read).

Andy

“which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us.”

This is a great observation. I agree that this is the case in many evangelical churches in America.

Certainly when teaching on homosexuality we should include Biblical teaching on fornication, adultery, incest, etc. The call for repentance must go forth to everyone, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

I must also add that I was genuinely shocked and suprised to see the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin being posted in this forum.

If we are even willing to intertain the notion that lying, stealing, murder, drunkeness, fornication, idolatry, homosexuality, hatred, etc. are not sins, then we have ceased to be the church, regardless of what we call ourselves.

Sadly, this confirms my previous statement that the church by and large has stopped dealing with sin, the very thing Christ suffered and died for. This is why the church has become irrelevent, it has nothing to do with cultural involvement. We are irrelevent because everyone knows we have turned ourselves into nothingness.

I find McKnight's distinction between reading through a tradition and with a tradition a false dichotomy. What does that even mean? Why evangelicals still break out in hives when the word "tradition" comes out is beyond me. No one escapes tradition. The danger lies in failing to to be aware of one's tradition and how it shapes interpretation. Yes, there's a back and forth between our localized tradition and Scripture, but that all takes place within the great Tradition. The great Tradition does not change much, if ever.

It would be a great idea for preachers to be honest about their methodology. Biggest problem with that? I doubt most preachers know what their methodology is, let alone what the word means. It should be explained but not from the pulpit per se. It should happen in the larger teaching of the church: Bible studies, small groups, etc.

Christians rom every age have tried to deal with the idea of "tradition" and "experience" and define their role in reading and applying the Scriptures.

Tradition and experience should, and does, flavor our understanding of Scripture... that is healthy.

"Or are we both victims and perpetrators of rebellion against our own good, persistently deceived and deceiving?"

Oh Andy, nice, very nice, and well put, too. One of my favorite classic lines is from the new BattleStar Galatica, where #6, a Cylon, caresses Baltar's face as he stumbles over his protestations of innoncence while his world burns around him, she says to him, "That's the thing about you humans, you have an incredible capacity for self-deception."

I think we focus too much on sin...and litmus tests...who meets the right criteria, who postures, and who murmur's the right incantations, than we do on helping one another in faith to the Y'shua.

The world is a cess-pool of temptations, sins, and crimes against all that is good and holy; and brothers and sisters, we all gleefully wallowed in it at one time or another. Unaware, or even aware that we were poisoning ourselves, and possibly dying in the muck of our ignorant joy.

Now that some of us are out, we should keep in mind that we don't smell like row's of summer roses, fields of daisies, or flowing Irish springs; and keeping that in mind, instead of commenting about how some reek more than others as they're being hauled out of the waste called life, perhaps we should be happy that G-d is going to clean us all up for dinner.

Thanks for the comments on my post from the NPC. It seems like readers' comments and opinions are generally in line with those in the room during this session on "Critical Issues." Depending on which of the 4 panelists was talking about a particular topic, some in the room were nodding in agreement while others looked confused. At other times most in the audience seemed to disagree. Ten minutes later it appeared most of us were in agreement with the position being taken by a panelist. I suppose that is the nature of these types of events that tackle critical/controversial subject matter.

In response to Andy Crouch's comment ("The direct quotes in this summary, however, are _not_ what I said (or read).")... I sincerely hope I didn't misrepresent your position, Andy. I found your thoughts on our tendency to draw hard categories between homo/hetero-sexual to be very helpful. I understood you to say that these categories lead to an unhelpful double standard of sin judgment.

I'd highly recommend Andy's article, Before the Deluge (http://culture-makers.com/articles/before_the_deluge) for some very helpful thoughts on how Christians engage the conversation about homosexuality and the church.

On homosexuality, we should be aware that this is a spiritual battle to deceive the church to condemn an innocent group, hence distracting us from the real battles of preaching Jesus. Not only are we distracted, we loose a moral high ground as we will be seen as hypocrites. Sometimes, we eat food that are bad for us, although it taste nice to proclaim our righteouness over their "sinful" lifestyles.

"On homosexuality, we should be aware that this is a spiritual battle to deceive the church to condemn an innocent group, hence distracting us from the real battles of preaching Jesus. Not only are we distracted, we loose a moral high ground as we will be seen as hypocrites."

Innocent?
None of us are innocent, and none of us have any business claiming the moral high ground much less harboring a thought of ascending to it.
Our mere presence on that plateau would denude it of it's meaning, and prove how truly and totally corrupt we really are.
That place is G-d's and G-d's alone, and we should not assume that position as attainable in our current condition.

However, that being said, I will concur that we are being distracted by minor symtoms of the fall when there is so much more that needs to be addressed. Perhaps, we should focus on that aspect, making disciples of men, leave the judgement thingy to G-d, and just love one another.

"3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers?

Let’s rephrase the question. Can a church that accepts homosexuality as okay actually help someone break free from the sin of homosexuality? No because they won’t try. Or try this: Can a church that says lying is a sin actually provide a safe place for liars?

The safest place for any sinner of any kind should be the church but not because we do not deal with sinfulness, rather because we do in a spirit of grace and truth.

How safe a place feels and how safe a place is may not the same. Your question seems to be about how safe a place feels.

"Should gay members of your congrgation be allowed some opportunity of leadership?"

You have gay members? That is a problem in itself. Gay attenders, no problem. Membership should not be offered to anyone engaged in flaunting a sin, whether they be homosexuals, straight adulterers, or something else abhorrent to God.

Why is homosexuality the ultimate test of deciding who can be in leadership and who can not? What about a person in leadership who is exposed as being addicted to pornography? What about an adulterer?

In the latter two cases many times pastors or leadership are allowed to stay provided that they work on restoration. (of course this varies some) Why not work the same way with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a sin, we know that. We know that ultimately we are to work at loving the sinner and helping them be restored to being more like Christ.

The question really being asked here is "will the church be mute about homosexuality, or will they look at it the same as any other sin?"

What Tony Jones and the others in the Emergent movement are articulating is (at least I think) a position of love and acceptance to the homosexual who feels they would never fit in a church. Ultimately them being allowed into leadership is a church by church decision. Only the local body will know the character of the person, where they are with God, how they are working on the sins in their life etcetera.

Why do we want churches to be safe places to worship?

Light and truth and mercy are risky and dangerous and threatening.

It's always interesting to me that we as a culture talk about such controversial topics on blogs but a large portion of churches are not willing to preach or discuss on the holiness of sex in marriage. Maybe that is why people have such a distorted view of sexuality and turn to sinful natures of adultery, pornography, homosexuality, etc. We let the media shape people's mind instead of preaching on the hard topics because we don't want to step on anyone's toes.

You can tell a lot about a community by who is really allowed at the communion table and who is not. Evangelicals in particuliar and I attend such a community are particularly good at deceiving themselves that their table is open. It isn't. We tell gays and lesbians that they are sinful and God isn't near them as long as they 'practice their sin'. Yet, these same people will sit down on Sabbath to a pork dinner. Because after all Jesus' made all unclean things clean!
Evangelicals claim homosexuality is something to be purged because it is sinful. But these are the same folks that say we must keep foreign people out of our borders and kick people off of welfare. The very things that got Israel into exile and Sodom destroyed! And in the same sermon will claim that Jesus died for all of us!
There is something unholy about the very nature of the evangelical conversation right now. Does justice, mercy, and faithfulness matter anymore? Are we so selective in our process and orthopraxis that we have strayed from the simple message of salvation through Christ.
Have we determined as a Church that salvation is achieved only through the conservative societal lense and not through Christ himself? Have we made God so small that we have determined that He cannot possibly see Gays and Lesbians through Christ while they live out their lives 'in sin'. Is our answer that salvation is for those who meet the conservative evangelical model of perfection? If so, then who can be saved? I know I sure can't! Last time I checked John 13 still was in play. I didn't read in John 12 or John 14 any comments like, 'and Jesus said oh yeah but I did not lay my life down for Gays, Lesbians. Liberals, Welfare Moms, Gang Member, Deadbeat, dads, Drug users or pushers, illegal aliens, convicts,or who people who cheat on their spouses'. Last time I checked we all could call on Him.

"should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?"

this sounds like "should we allow the children to ride elephants during the sermon?"

there is a lot of don't-ask-don't-tell going on in churches. we have become so afraid of being honest with each other and being real that no one will let any one in any more. one reason I like my church is because the music group I play in is full of "real" people. I hate defining them as that. but there are too many churches full of the usual self-perfecting congregations who believe you have to clean up before you can get through the doors. this is why my generation is leaving in droves.

homosexuality is a hot-button and it shouldn't be. it is becoming less and less of an issue with my generation and the next one coming up.

cue: you can begin warming up your Bibles to start quoting from Paul and Leviticus now.

south africa condoned apartheid for decades, citing the biblical stories of Cain and Noah as the "mark" placed by G-d and by the curse from Noah, thus creating the black race. slavery was condoned for years because of verses in the Bible. women and their places in leadership (or lack of places in leadership), inability to own property, keeping quiet in church, and being a physically and mentally weaker sex because of verses in the Bible. financial prosperity is condoned by numerous preachers due to a select few verses in the Bible and woe to those who do not believe because it is their lack of faith. And then there is 'biblical' marketing...

we often read what we wish to read. I have not read anything regarding homosexuality from Christ, for or against. really, he spoke more on the Kingdom of Heaven and money more than anything. I think these were far more important, so I've focused more on showing Christ to those who need him than focusing on someone's sexuality.

I have seen many circumstances and issues "change" due to culture and time. we no longer stone non-virgins, grow our beards long, or call ourselves 'people of the way'. we even adorn our places of worship with one of the ghastliest ornaments of torture known in history. homosexuality may be one of those things that is changing. I accept my homosexual brethren and sisters because I am told that I am to love my neighbors as myself. I cannot judge them because this is a gray area for me and because I have a hard time seeing G-d as some angry Zeus character.

let the casting of stones begin.

In responce to Ericpo, God doesnt care what we eat, he wants our hearts. And comparing Homosexuality to Illegal Aliens is well, not in the same ballpark. Yes it is true Christ died for the "sins" of us all, I dont know an Evangelical that would argue with that, but its when we come to him sin and all with all the baggage of our lives and lay it at his feet in repentence, that we are to turn from that sin, and that goes for the adulterer, the thief, the liar, the drug addict, the one addicted to porn etc. as well as the homosexual. Without an acknowledgment of the sin and repentence there can be no forgivness and grace. And no place in God's Kingdom.

In responce to Sara, your generation is not leaving the church in droves in fact the Evangelical Church is thriving because they teach truth concerning scripture. And they are not saying get your act together before you come to God we all come to him sin and all, but upon coming we confess our sin and repent of them.
Your sarcasm concerning Lev. and Paul is surprising coming from one who claims to be a believer. Do we throw those scriptures out because our culture has "evolved" beyond them? God forbid, let me cling to his words all of them rather than the winds of cultural change. You mention treatment of blacks, but true believers could not condone the slavery of blacks in this country, it was scripture twisted to fit what sin people wanted to justify. The beards and calling ourselves people of the way, outwardly , surface things, not the things of the heart God is looking for. Take away the scriptures about Homosexuality and view Gods creation on its own and you'll see Homosexuality is unnatural, our bodies were not made for it, any Doctor can tell you that. Lets stop making God in our image, he is a God of love but also a jealous God, a Just God, a Holy God and a God of Wrath among countless other attributes.

Sara,

I also love my church because people are not afraid to be real and don't have to be perfect. As someone who works with sexually broken people, I can say that I believe sexuality is deeply important to who we are as humans. Jesus showed great compassion for sexually broken people.

We can talk about whether homosexuals are sexually broken (I happen to think they are); but if God is indeed calling people out of homosexuality, then it isn't because he is angry, but because he is compassionate.

All this being said, I really agree with where you are starting: God calls us to love our neighbors. And we love because he first loved us, not because he threatens us into submission. I hope I can love in the same way you aspire to.

i just want to say that Jesus said drink from my water and you will never be thirsty again so if you accept his gift of salvation you will always be saved. am i right? well it is our duty as brothers and sisters in the body to edify each other. so if someone doesn't acknowledge that he or she is in sin then we should make it known to them so they can maybe change... all i see this topic as is something that will separate the church it's tearing us apart. we cannot lose sight of love. the reason that a new church is emerging is because the broken and lost are rejected and the ones who want them saved are those of the new church. segregation is back and its not in the schools for a race issue its in our churches with the kids your grew up with and they are sad beyond belief

Rich:
We are not called to be perfect and holy and blameless. We are called to love others and to come as we are, without judging others that we don't know. It is then that we receive grace and forgiveness. We judge and rebuke others that we DO know -- Christians -- because we are to hold each other accountable. If you find my method a little rough, that is your perception. And Christians CAN use sarcasm and satire to make a point, especially those who "claim" to be believers. Seems I tweaked a nerve with you, sweetie. But be very careful how you go about ministering to others lest you lose out meeting some fascinating souls. Don't forget that we are all eternal beings (C.S. Lewis).

Until then, see you on the other side. I'm sure you'll find many surprises.
S

Deut. 6:4,5; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 12:29-31
" 'Hear, O Israel, The LRD our GD, the LRD is one. Love the LRD your GD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself' There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."