Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us."The article starts off in a thought-provoking way about how to be pastoral while answering difficult questions. It is easy to understand his initial point. Oftentimes, when people ask questions, it is helpful to know what is behind the question. As he points out, a question may be emotionally charged from one side of the issue or the other. It may be a trap. It could be any number of things. In fact, his response to the question of homosexuality is a response that we should learn to use: "Can you tell me why that question is important to you?"
What is stunning about this article is that McLaren apparently does not know what to think about homosexuality. I can understand the use of rhetorical devices to frame an article or a discussion. I can understand not revealing one's hand in order to lead people to a particular point. I cannot understand how anyone even remotely familiar with the Bible can pretend to not know what it says about homosexuality. McLaren does not seem to be rhetorical in his suggestion. It appears that he honestly thinks this issue needs more thought and discussion.
Yet, God has been clear on this issue, as has been almost universally recognized throughout civilization. The Bible declares it unnatural, sinful, the result of God's turning man over to himself to reap the consequences of his rejection of God. In Scripture, homosexuality is never presented in a positive light. It is always sinful. (So is adultery, stealing, etc. So don't think I am picking out one sin and making worse than all others.) With the clarity of Scripture, why is there any reason to wonder what we should believe?
We could wonder how we should approach people in homosexual behavior. We could wonder what the best way to counsel them is. We could wonder how best to help them from Scripture. We could wonder if we should temper our language. But we should not wonder what we should believe.
One of McLaren's concerns is that we treat people with grace and kindness, even in their sin. With that, I can wholeheartedly agree. It is never right to ridicule, mock, taunt, or shame homosexual people. It is never right to treat them in an undignified or disrespectful manner. In fact, we should treat them as Christ treated all sinners, with love and compassion, not overlooking their sins, but ministering to them in compassion and mercy.
McLaren's position is all too typical of a large wing of the emergent church movement. Clearly revealed truths accepted by orthodox Christianity for generations have been neutered in hopes of a recasting of spirituality. For many emergents, the mark of a good Christian and a good theologian is ignorance ... not knowing the answers to questions. It is paraded about as humility, stating that we are not all knowing and are humble enough to recognize it. For them, everyone is ignorant in some areas. Some simply do not admit it.
However, there is no humility is pretending to not know an answer on a topic God has clearly spoken about. There is in actuality only pride that asserts that we know better than the God who spoke clearly when he should have been more reticent to make declarations.
McLaren suggests that we need a five year moratorium on a pronouncement about homosexuality during which time we will give careful attention to "biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields." Then, he says, if we have clarity, we can speak. If not, we should wait five more years. His excuse is that the church took centuries to figure out many important things. But surely he has not forgotten that the church took no time to figure out many other important things.
One would expect a comment like McLaren's from an old-line liberal, a skeptical seeker, or someone more interested in what people think than in what God has revealed in Scripture. One would not expect his comment from an evangelical pastor given charge to lead people to know God. Perhaps his words speak more than he intended.
6 comments:
Interestingly enough, Robert Schuller affirmed on Larry King last night that he opposed homosexual marriage and thinks homosexuality is a sin (although, somehow, he managed to say it in an upbeat way without actually using the word sin). Go figure.
Good post, Larry. But from what I've read of McLaren, he is not evangelical. His theology seems to have more kinship with the old-line liberals. Perhaps he is a "New Kind of Liberal?"
So McLaren suggests a moratorium of 5 years to figure out whether practicing homosexuality is sin!
There is within the Christian Church of America a 50% divorce rate. Maybe a 5 year moratorium is in order, so we can critque what the Bible teaches about divorce.
Hey, it's the 21 century--get with it.
There is a growing number of Christians [so called] that are teaching that there are "many paths to heaven." We don't need a moratorium on that; we have the "Jesus Seminar" folks speaking to that issue.
Moratoriums, talk about politically correct. This isn't gramatically correct, but so what: Moratorium, The Bible is moratorium enough for me.
pastorjerry
Brian,
I agree with you about McClaren's "evangelicalism." It certainly seems far removed from the evangel of Scripture.
Church's stand on fat people? How are "fat people" and "homosexuals" alike? They aren't. Look, the Bible is clear about gluttony (it is a sin), and the Bible is clearl about homosexuality (it is a sin). And the Bible is clear that the two are not equal. Don't be silly.
SIN IS SIN! And the blood of Jesus covers ALL! Unless of course you believe "it is NOT finished"? As for me I believe Jesus when He said, "IT IS FINISHED"!
For those who don't know, Geo took some comments of mine from the comment section of another blog and responded to them here, which is fine, I suppose.
But in so doing, he misses the point. No one is arguing that sin isn't sin, or that Jesus didn't die for all sin.
But Scripture makes clear that all sin isn't equal. For starters, just read the OT Law and see that different sins had different penalties attached to them. That is clear biblical proof that God does not view all sin as liable for the same punishment.
In the Law, homosexuality is a capital offense. (I am not saying it should be that way today). Gluttony is not even mentioned, that i can recall, and certainly not as a capital offense.
Jesus died for all sin. But McClaren is willing to stop short of calling homosexuality a sin, and that is wrong. McClaren is scared to say what God says about it. How can you defend that, Geo?
Lastly, please don't turn my blog into a flame war. I encourage you to comment, but please keep the comments civil and about the topic, not personal.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment