January 31, 2006

The Poet of Ur: "Genus: Blog, Species: Comment"

Wheaton College professor, and guest poet of Ur, Dan Haase has been watching our conversation from a distance. Dan sent along this short piece to help us pause and think. It has made me wonder, should this blog be seeking to elevate the dialogue among brothers and sister in Christ--a place for us to grow through the spiritual discipline of conversation? Or, should this forum simply reflect the character of the church today--both its decency and decay? Perhaps Dan's words will help us all think more carefully before we submit comments in the future.

Genus: Blog, Species: Comment

Some come like snakes –
Through cracks, and holes,
and misconceptions of argument –
Hissing out their truth,
causing dust to rise,
into the eyes and nostrils –
Then, in clouded mind,
With venom in the veins,
The BODY dies.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 31, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

January 30, 2006

Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 4: McLaren's Response

I read with interest - and some pain - the first few days' worth of responses to my article. I thought that some readers would be interested in a few of my responses to their responses.

Before beginning though, I should say that I just learned today that Leadership Journal/CTI has an informal editorial policy on homosexuality. I was unaware of this policy when I wrote the article. If I had known, I wouldn’t have submitted the article because it assumes a variety of opinion on the issue that is beyond the journal’s policy. If I were a guest in your home, I wouldn’t knowingly bring up subjects that are against family policy, out of common courtesy as guest to host – and I feel that I have been rude, albeit unintentionally, in causing discomfort to the hosts and readers of this column. Please do not hold the hosts responsible for your disapproval of my guest column. In my defense, I was told that the subject of this issue was sexuality, and I was simply trying to offer something of value to pastoral leaders on this subject. But I should have inquired as to a policy on this subject before writing my column. Speaking of rudeness, I would also like to express my dismay that the editors allowed my friend Doug Pagitt to be treated despicably in one response. I’m glad they removed the most offensive sentence, but I find it stunning that people would applaud that kind of thing. I would much rather stand with Doug as ones being insulted than stand with those casting or celebrating the insults.

Now, on to some responses.

First, readers should know that titles are often created by editors, not the writers themselves. In this case, I wouldn't choose the title "More Important Than Being Right” that was used in the Journal. I said that being right wasn’t enough, and that we also must also be wise, loving, patient, and pastoral. None of these things are necessarily more important than being right, but they are all important along with being right in “finding a pastoral response” (which was a more helpful title, included in the blog). Similarly, in the text, I never said that being right was unimportant – only that we must also be pastoral.

Second, a number of responders suggested I lack concern for being Biblical or caring about truth. These readers must have missed this sentence, “To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are ‘seasoned with salt’ and appropriate ‘to the need of the moment’ (Col. 4, Eph. 4),” where I refer to Scripture to support the main point of the article (which was not the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, but rather the need for pastoral sensitivity). Many readers seem to assume that by quoting verses from Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, they have solved the problem. It looks like an open-and-shut case to them, and the only reason they can surmise for the fact that some of us find the issue more complex is that we must be ignorant, lazy, rebellious, incompetent, cowardly, compromised, or postmodern.

Please be assured that as a pastor and as someone who loves and seeks to follow the Bible, I am aware of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and related texts. Believe me, I have read them and prayerfully pondered them, and have read extensively on all the many sides of the issue. 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. We have become aware of as-yet unanswered scholarly questions, such as questions about the precise meaning of malakoi and arsenokoitai in Paul’s writings, and we wonder why these words were used in place of paiderasste, the meaning of which would be much clearer if Paul’s intent were to address behavior more like what we would call homosexuality. (If responses are posted to this submission, please – there is no need to reply that you know the actual meaning of these disputed Greek words. There are dozens of websites that already address these important issues in great detail, but they are peripheral matters to what I was trying to say in the original article and here as well.)

On a deeper level, some of us feel we are being dishonest and unfaithful to Scripture unless we face questions about how we should interpret and apply these texts today, and what hermeneutical methods and assumptions underlie our interpretations and applications. 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? Add to that the Book of Job, where Job’s “comforters” who quote to him the simple black-and-white assessments consistent with Leviticus or Deuteronomy are reprimanded by God; what is generally true (that good people reap good consequences and bad people, bad) is not true in Job’s case, and they are in error not to acknowledge that possibility. We also find that the wisdom literature of the Bible again and again tells us that wisdom is not always simple and obvious, but often requires a search beneath the surface, as if we were excavating for gold and silver.

I say all this not expecting to change anybody’s mind, but simply hoping that a few readers will know that there are people who take Scripture seriously, who love Jesus and want to be faithful pastors, who are not “relativistic postmodernists” at all, and yet who don’t find the issue as simple as some people do. We acknowledge the sincerity and good faith of our brothers and sisters who find that this all resolves very simply in black and white and without any shadow of doubt; we only wish they could extend the same grace and not assume or assert things about us that aren’t true.

Third, I would wish that people would take more care in reading what I actually said. I did not argue or call for a moratorium on discussion or making decisions (as some responders asserted). I simply suggested that a moratorium on making pronouncements might be a good idea. What I meant by pronouncements I did not make clear in the article, but many of the responses provide examples of exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about. Of course, I did not and do not seriously expect such a moratorium to happen. Who would have the authority to call for it, and what could anyone do to enforce it? The purpose of the hypothetical proposal was to point up the desirability of not engaging in hurtful and divisive rhetoric, but rather of providing space where we could practice “prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably.” Some may agree, in light of the tone of some of the responses, that we Christians need some work in this area.

That brings me to a fourth response. Mockery, scorn, insult, invective, name-calling and the like do appear in the Bible. It is hard to try to square them with other Scriptures like Ephesians 4:29-32 or 2 Timothy 2:23-26 – that is another one of the kinds of complexities we face when we try to take the whole of Scripture seriously without just quoting one verse to the exclusion of others. I suppose some who accuse me of a failure to apply Leviticus 18:22 literally may be able to justify not taking Galatians 6:1 literally themselves. Still, I would hope that we could seek for a greater degree of civility, one might even hope for charity and humility and gentleness (in light of Galatians 5:15), in our future conversations about these or any other matters.

Fifth, I am sorry that I singled out “conservative Christians” and “religious broadcasters” early in the piece. That no doubt reflected my personal response to people of that persuasion (frankly, like one or two responders in this exchange) who have been rather bombastic and unkind. While I have seldom experienced the same kind of vitriol from the religious left (or even the secular left), I know some people have, which may explain some of their reactions too. However we’ve been wounded by others, we (I include myself here) need to be aware that we may respond unfairly and almost unconsciously to others because of our past woundedness. Here we need to return again and again to our Lord’s teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation so that we don’t act out old well-worn scripts of vengeance and bitterness. (Each of us, no doubt, sees the splinter in the other’s eye better than the plank in our own.)

Fortunately, I was more even-handed politically later in the piece when I spoke of “political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent’s constituency” and winds “blowing furiously from the left and right.” My point was that we need to be aware that our pastoral conversations aren’t taking place in a vacuum, and that there are political parties seeking to profit from these issues – on both sides. (Pardon my cynicism, but I’ve lived around the Beltway for a long time.)

Finally, I think many responders missed one of the main things I was trying to do in the piece. This failure owes more to a lack of skill on my part as a writer; I should have made this more obvious. For anyone who wants to re-read the piece, I would point out that near its midpoint I said, “Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear … We see … We’re trying to care….” The first-person plural was significant and intentional.

I was trying to describe a “we” that comprises most (not all) of the “emerging leaders” – not all who exist, but simply those few whom “I know.” I was trying to make clear that this “we” includes people who have a variety of views on the issue of homosexuality. I said that “many of us” – note, this is not “all of us” – “don’t know what we should think….” Then I specified two groups, both of whom I called “we.” “Even if we are convinced that homosexual behavior is always sinful…” and “If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships…” Few readers seemed to notice that my “we” included both groups.

My goal (if you give me a fair reading, I think you’ll agree) was not to create a “we” who think one thing and a “they” who think another. My “we” included people who have a variety of opinions, but who share “agony” because even if we have a firm position, there are still (as at least one responder perceptively noted) many other unanswered questions that we face as pastors, such as how to treat people whom we think are wrong with “dignity, gentleness, and respect,” and “how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.”

For example, if you are certain without a shadow of doubt that homosexual behavior is always wrong, where do you draw the line: Do you let a homosexual person be a member of your church, or an attender? Does your exclusion apply only to “practicing” gays, or to celibate people of gay orientation? How many weeks can they attend without being given an ultimatum? How do you find out if a supposedly nonpracticing person is hiding their secret behaviors? How many failures do you allow before excommunication? 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? What if your leading elder comes to you to say his daughter has come out as a lesbian? What if your daughter comes out? Or conversely, if you are an “open and affirming” congregation, do you require fidelity or do you allow promiscuity? How do you enforce that? Do you accept people who think homosexuality is wrong? What if they repeatedly share their opinions publicly and in so doing scare away gay people whom you seek to receive? Are you then open and affirming of homosexuals, but not of people who consider homosexuality a sin? If you don’t find at least some of these questions agonizing, I’m not sure what to say.

My “we” includes people who answer these questions in a variety of ways, but who at least share some degree of “agony” about the complexities of responding to people faithfully and pastorally. Sadly, though, some of the responses were very quick to turn my “we” into an adversarial us/them. To those of you who were adversarial, may I say that it is not a pleasant thing to be in your “them”? It helps me understand how gay people feel in your presence, and intensifies my sense of agony that I spoke of in the article.

I am no doubt wrong on many things. 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). But I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that “we” need to be more careful to preserve “we” and not let it deteriorate into us/them. I have seen what Paul said in Galatians 5:15 come true many times: people begin a feeding frenzy, biting and devouring “them,” and eventually, after “they” have been dispensed with, the remaining “we” turns on itself. People learn the practice of attack, mockery, judgment, and exclusion on “them,” but then their practice becomes a habit, perhaps an addiction. No matter how wrong you think I am, that is a danger you might want to keep in mind.

I hope readers, having now read my response - which is three times as long as the original piece - will not simply be content to pass judgment on me. Further, I hope this response will be disseminated as broadly as some of the original comments on it have been. I hope that we all will be able to engage in some prayerful self-examination (note the prefix self-) not only about our rightness, but also about our ability to be “wise. And loving. And patient.” However flawed my original article was, and however flawed some responses may be, might we agree on the value of that?

-Brian McLaren

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 30, 2006 | Comments (123) | TrackBack

January 27, 2006

Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Prologue and Rant by Mark Driscoll

Hundreds of readers have posted comments about Brian McLaren's article on forming a pastoral response to the "homosexual question." One such reader was Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. As "one of the 50 most influential pastors in America" and an outspoken critic of the emergent movement, we thought others would like to read Driscoll's comments.

Well, it seems that Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd are emerging into homo-evangelicals.

Before I begin my rant, let me first defend myself. First, the guy who was among the first to share the gospel with me was a gay guy who was a friend. Second, I planted a church in my 20s in one of America’s least churched cities where the gay pride parade is much bigger than the march for Jesus. Third, my church is filled with people struggling with same sex attraction and gay couples do attend and we tell them about the transforming power of Jesus. Fourth, I am not a religious right wingnut. In fact, when James Dobson came to town to hold the anti-gay rally, we took a lot of heat for being among the biggest churches in the state, the largest evangelical church in our city, and not promoting the event in our church because we felt it would come off as unloving to the gay community. The men who hosted the event are all godly men and good friends and I’ve taken a few blows for not standing with them on this issue. Fifth, I am myself a devoted heterosexual male lesbian who has been in a monogamous marriage with my high school sweetheart since I was 21 and personally know the pain of being a marginalized sexual minority as a male lesbian.

And now the rant.

For me, the concern started when McLaren in the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’” Sadly, by failing to answer, McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt God’s feelings and broke his heart.

Then, Brian’s Tonto Doug Pagitt, an old acquaintance of mine, wrote the following in a book he and I both contributed to called Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches edited by Robert Webber and due out this spring:

“The question of humanity is inexorably link to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with these issues for our day. I do not mean this a critique, but as an acknowledgement that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture. Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understandings of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual.”

And on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.

As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.

Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.

In conclusion, this is all just gay.

-Pastor Mark Driscoll

[AN EDITORIAL NOTE FROM UrL: As some have noted, one sentence has been edited from Mark Driscoll's post above. As the moderator of the discussions on this blog, I will, from time to time, edit comments and posts to keep the conversation focused and on topic. It was clear from comments rolling in that the sentence in question was causing the conversation to veer away from Brian McLaren and the "homosexuality question." This is why it was removed.]

On March 27, Mark Driscoll posted an apology on his blog, Resurgence, for his comments above. An excerpt is below. To read his full remarks please visit his blog.

And after listening to the concerns of the board members of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network that I lead, and of some of the elders and deacons at Mars Hill Church that I pastor, I have come to see that my comments were sinful and in poor taste. Therefore, I am publicly asking for forgiveness from both Brian and Doug because I was wrong for attacking them personally and I was wrong for the way in which I confronted positions with which I still disagree. I also ask forgiveness from those who were justifiably offended at the way I chose to address the disagreement. I pray that you will accept this posting as a genuine act of repentance for my sin.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 27, 2006 | Comments (103) | TrackBack

January 26, 2006

Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 2: A Blogger's Response

Since posting Brian McLaren’s commentary about homosexuality we’ve had difficulty keeping pace with the responses being written. Reading through the comments reveals why homosexuality is known as a “wedge issue” in our culture. Our readers appear divided between heralding McLaren as a prophet, and condemning him as a heretic. Below is one response we received by a blogger named Jeff who disagrees with McLaren’s suggested five year moratorium on making pronouncements about homosexuality. But unlike many other critics, Jeff also writes about his very personal engagement with this issue.

1. To make the accusation that "we" (evangelicals or the church or the "religious right” whoever “we” are) consider homosexuality to be somehow "more sinful" than any other transgression based on the fact that we seem to be giving so much time, energy and attention to it at present is somewhat unfair. The church didn't have a secret meeting somewhere and decide that now is the time to take action against "those homosexuals." Our reaction has been totally defensive, forced upon us by court-mandated acceptance of homosexual marriage, the consecration of homosexuals to leadership positions in the church, the media's glorification of the homosexual lifestyle and the continuing actions of the militant portion of the homosexual community.

Just as abortion became a dominant issue for the church only after Roe v. Wade, so homosexuality has attained prominence in the aftermath of these significant events. Those "pronouncements" that Brian bewails are the equivalent of "raising up a standard against the enemy" who is truly "coming in like a flood."

2. I fear that Brian's desired "moratorium" is more likely to turn into a "surrender" than anything else. It will certainly be a unilateral one, for the voices crying for more and more acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle will certainly NOT be silent while we take our little siesta. We followed a similar path before in the areas of science, politics and education, somehow believing that if we ignored the problem it would surely go away, and those institutions are now almost exclusively controlled by the secular world view. Silence now in the area of morality, even in the name of reason and "seeking the will of God," would accomplish no more. Of course, if we’re really not sure what to think about homosexuality, then this will help solve that problem without any undue exertion on our part …

3. Many have suggested that the church does not speak out nearly so forcefully against such sins as gossip, gluttony and greed as we do against homosexuality, apparently suggesting that we take the same line with sexual sin as we have with these more common indiscretions. Is it not more correct to call us to speak with clarity and force against these sins as well? It is certainly not to our credit that we have allowed them to go unchallenged, and the condition of many of our churches today shows the results. The solution is MORE consistent preaching of the truth, not less.

4. We have already lost - or are badly losing - in the war against other sexual sins. When all statistics and surveys show that divorce, adultery and fornication are present among church members in the same proportions as in the world at large, that is the only conclusion that we can draw. Having begun by softening the edges of the Biblical position on divorce, the rest seems to be swirling down the drain along with it. Perhaps we have drawn this line to avoid giving the enemy a complete victory in the area of sexuality. For now, incest and pedophilia are still taboo; but once we redefine marriage and relationships to include homosexuals, can the others be far behind? That slope, indeed, is slippery .

5. Is the stand we are taking against homosexuality really so radical? In virtually all the states where defense of marriage propositions or amendments have appeared on the ballot, they have been overwhelmingly approved. Call it homophobia if you will; I dare to believe that there is still a spark of the divine image left in people that cringes at the thought of the word "family" being so radically redefined.

6. Could we finally put to rest that old saw about "hating the sin but loving the sinner?" Only God is capable of such a dichotomy; the rest of us all fail to some degree - some of us miserably! - on one end or the other. Words to the contrary notwithstanding, many of the responses I have read have either shied far from a truly divine hatred of the sin of homosexuality, or a truly divine love for the homosexual. In any case, we are not required to hate sin in order to speak out against it; all we must do is recognize it for what it is and what it does to the people who practice it. Leave the hating and vengeance and judgment and punishment to God, Who has done, does and will do them all well and properly. Let's concentrate on the love to which we are frequently and forcefully called in the Word - a love which both speaks out and is silent as led by the Spirit.

7. I wonder if the God Who said that the watcher on the wall is held responsible for those who die because of his failure to warn of the enemy's approach will accept a "moratorium" as our excuse for the thousands who will enter eternity in their sin while we consider our course?

8. One comment suggested that trying to help a homosexual find his or her way out of that lifestyle is equivalent to an "abortion of the identity." But our identity is not defined by our sexuality - no matter how much the homosexual activists would like us to think that it is - any more than our identity is truly defined by our jobs or our families or our past or our political affiliation. Our "sense" of identity may be bound to these things, but that is another thing altogether. Our true identity is exclusively defined by our relationship to Christ. Anything else that claims to be is a pretender.

9. Finally, as a person who struggled as a pastor for 17 years (though not currently) and as a homosexual for more than 40, I can only testify from my own experience that it is not more understanding from Christians that I need; it is more of Christ, and He comes with both truth and grace. But to receive that grace, I must first become aware of the truth of my situation. So is one more important than the other? In terms of preeminence, no; in terms of sequence, at least perhaps. Grace has no appeal, no meaning, to the person who feels or sees no need for it. Until I am confronted with the truth of who and what I am - not from a theological perspective, but from a Divine one - I cannot truly receive forgiveness for what makes me what I am. And ultimately, it is not homosexuality that makes me a sinner; it is sin which makes me a homosexual. It makes you something different, but it's still sin.

Personally, yes there are times that I wish I had a greater circle of initiated friends in the church to whom I could speak candidly about my daily struggles with my besetting sin. Not nearly enough Christians have come to grips with their personal loathing for this particular problem to the extent that they can be effective as friends, confidants or evangelists to most homosexuals. But as others here have put it, it is both grace AND truth that I and my fellow-travelers need. Either without the other is insufficient. I need the accountability of those who will hold my behavior up to the plumb line of truth and show me my erring; I need the support of those who bring God's grace to life by binding my wounds and caring for me when the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Perhaps someday, Brian, it will be your personal "favorite" sin that will be part of the newspaper headlines. It will be interesting to see if a moratorium is appropriate then.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 26, 2006 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

January 23, 2006

Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response

In his prominent role as author, theologian, speaker, and leader of the emergent conversation some forget that Brian McLaren is also a pastor. In the latest issue of Leadership Journal, which focuses on ministry in a sexually charged culture, Brian shares a story that reveals the complexity of the homosexual question—a question where theology, truth, sin, grace, culture, politics, and pastoral wisdom collide.

The couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality.

That "still, small voice" told me not to answer. Instead I asked, "Can you tell me why that question is important to you?" "It's a long story," he said with a laugh.

Usually when I'm asked about this subject, it's by conservative Christians wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call "radio-orthodoxy," i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters. Sometimes it's asked by ex-gays who want to be sure they'll be supported in their ongoing re-orientation process, or parents whose children have recently "come out."

But the young woman explained, "This is the first time my fiancée and I have ever actually attended a Christian service, since we were both raised agnostic." So I supposed they were like most unchurched young adults I meet, who wouldn't want to be part of an anti-homosexual organization any more than they'd want to be part of a racist or terrorist organization.

I hesitate in answering "the homosexual question" not because I'm a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be . . . pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.

We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit's work in that person's life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are "seasoned with salt" and appropriate to "the need of the moment" (Col. 4; Eph. 4).

Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent's constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric--and we're pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors. Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ's name, not cultural enemies we're trying to vanquish.

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." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.

Later that week I got together with the new couple to hear their story. "It's kind of weird how we met," they explained. "You see, we met last year through our fathers who became . . . partners. When we get married, we want to be sure they will be welcome at our wedding. That's why we asked you that question on Sunday."

Welcome to our world. Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should "seem good to the Holy Spirit and us."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 23, 2006 | Comments (195) | TrackBack

January 18, 2006

Unbundling Christianity: An Attempt to Define the Emerging Church

Since this blog launched last October one of the alluring conversations has been the nature and definition of the “emerging church.” The debate started when James McDonald declared why he is not emerging, gained volume with my report on Brian McLaren’s seven layers of the emergent conversation, and has continued to surface through many of Ur’s entries.

To the frustration of its critics, and to the delight of its advocates, the emerging church has successfully resisted boundaries, categories, and labels. Such devices are seen by emergent’s adherents as the shackles of modernity used to confine and control what should be free and fluid. To an increasingly suspicious culture even the desire to established discernable boundaries is met with alarm. Such categorization can only serve two purposes—either exclusion (the judging of others determined to be unlike me), or exploitation (the targeting of others for my gain).

So, it is with some trepidation that I venture into the forbidden territory of definitions with admittedly less experience and knowledge of the emergent landscape than many of you reading this post.

My reason for entering is simple—curiosity. Most of the outspoken opponents of the emerging church have leveled the same criticism. They accuse it of being merely a deconstructionist movement—deconstructing modern church forms, theology, and strategies without constructing valid (i.e. modern/rational) alternatives. However, I have a hard time believing a purely deconstructionist movement would endure and gain momentum as the emergent conversation has done. Likewise, if the emergent church were not constructing some alternative theology/philosophy of ministry why would so many opponents feel threatened?

So, curiosity has led me to ask—is it possible to identify the emerging church by what it is constructing instead of simply by what it is deconstructing? Of course any effective process of differentiation requires both, so my definition must include some discussion of deconstruction. But, rather than using that inflammatory and hopelessly postmodern terminology, I prefer the word “unbundling” to describe what the emerging church is achieving.

In marketing bundling is the practice of packaging several items together as a single product. For example, being nearly bald I really don’t need conditioner for what remains of my hair. However, if I want to use a certain shampoo I am required to also purchase conditioner because the manufacturer has bundled them together. Bundling is a strategy that forces people to purchase more than they want or need by limiting their options.

The modern church is characterized by bundling. Modernity’s insistance on categories and boundaries has meant certain theological traditions have been bundled with certain worship styles, forms, and modes of ministry. For example, in the mid 20th century a progressive view of social justice was typically bundled together with liberal theology and traditional worship or liturgy style. In the 1980s and 90s a serious commitment to reaching non-Christians was often bundled together with conservative theology, contemporary worship forms, and program driven ministries.

The prevalence of bundling in the modern church is obvious by the clearly defined categories by which churches identified themselves. In 1987 if someone identified their church as “seeker-driven” we all knew what that meant theologically, aesthetically, and culturally. Just as everyone knew what “traditional,” “mainline,” and “Pentecostal” meant. Today these categories are far more ambiguous.

In my experience, the most significant contribution of the emergent movement is the unbundling of the Western church. The assumption that certain theological traditions, forms of worship, and modes of ministry must be packaged together is no longer valid to those with an emergent disposition. These church leaders are looking over the vast landscape of the Church, whose horizon reaches 2000 years back and whose expanse is wider than any single tradition, and they are questioning the validity of modern American evangelicalism as a bundled entity.

Instead, the emergent movement is creating a new ministry paradigm where unbundled elements of the church can be reconfigured into previously unseen forms of Christian community and mission. For example, some emergent communities are combining conservative Protestant theology with Roman Catholic and high church forms of worship—two things previously kept in separate bundles. Likewise, we are seeing a progressive social and political agenda no longer strictly bundled with liberal theology. The fact that Rick Warren and Bill Hybles are addressing poverty and AIDS in Africa reveals that unbundling is even occurring in the flagship of modern Christianity—the megachurch.

The combining of traditions and theologies estranged in the modern era may also explain why emerging church leaders hold strong affections for the spiritual formation movement. An older friend once asked me why young church leaders were so drawn to Dallas Willard at a conference. After all, Willard had none of the style, flash, or youth often associated with the emerging church. But Willard, like Richard Foster, Renovaré, and other pillars of the spiritual formation movement, do draw richly from many church traditions previously not bundled with evangelicalism. They defy categorization, and represent the reuniting of Christian spirituality. They share the value of reconfiguration with the emerging church.

Perhaps no one personifies this better than Tony Jones. Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent—so his credentials as an emerging church leader are indisputable. He is also the author of The Sacred Way, a book that explores the spiritual disciplines of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions and then offers suggestions for how to apply them in our cultural context. Jones openly celebrates that we “live in a time of unprecedented cross-pollination” in the church. He, and other emergent leaders, personify McLaren's principles of generous orthodoxy.

If we take this practice of unbundling/reconfiguring as the defining characteristic of the emerging church then perhaps the movement is misnamed. The dictionary defines “emerge” as “to come out of.” It’s a word that emphasizes what the emerging church is moving away from—it's a word rooted, as critics have noted, in deconstructing the modern church. A more constructive word, I believe, is “merge.” It is defined as “to join together different elements, mix, or combine.” Perhaps a better name for what we are experiencing is the “merging church” as previously estranged elements of Christianity are unbundled from modernity and reunited into endless permutations of mission and community.

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 18, 2006 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

January 16, 2006

George Barna's New Book 2: Defining the Debate

In my earlier post, I explained the thesis of George Barna’s latest book, Revolution. I think it important, however, to offer 2 corrections to my review:

The review’s subtitle, “George Barna wants commitment to the local congregation to sink lower than ever,” is inaccurate. It was added by an editor after my last read of the copy and does not represent the book’s views or my understanding of those. It would be accurate to instead say, “George Barna predicts commitment to the local congregation will sink lower than ever.” Or it might be accurate to say, “George Barna is not overly concerned about declining commitment to the traditional local congregation, given that the traditional local congregation has not effectively produced mature disciples.”

A second editorial change made just before printing is likewise inaccurate. I originally wrote, “Barna’s early books (he’s written more than 35) promoted Marketing the Church and The Power of Vision, so many perceived him as an ally of the megachurch. But in Revolution, his support for fluid movements and his direct challenge of a statement often used by Bill Hybels (‘The local church is the hope of the world’) make him now seem an ally of the emergent church.” But in the printed copy the final phrase changed to “…make him now seem a foe of the congregation.”

That’s not fair to Barna. As I read Revolution, I don’t take George to be a foe of the congregation. He predicts its decline; and he welcomes “spiritual mini-movements” that may or may not involve believers in the local church; and as he says, “Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God).” That does not, however, make him “a foe of the local congregation,” and I regret that those words were inserted.

So if you’re looking for someone to dislike George, I’m not it. In fact, I should add that I’m a phone friend of Tom Black, a key leader for the Barna organization and a major influence on the book. (As you might guess, Tom doesn’t agree with my take on the book. He was expecting this kind of objection but says that so far he’s gotten positive feedback.)

Since the review was posted, many have sent me email, hailing me as a genius or decrying me as an idiot. Among the latter, one pastor felt I had defended the traditional, institutional, programmatic church and attacked the nontraditional, organic, house church. In subsequent emails with him, I explained that I have nothing against house churches and fully support them as a model.

I'm a defender of church, local church, but not of buildings and programs. I view church this way:

(a) traditional church: building, staff, programs.

(b) nontraditional church/house church: as long as these efforts are (i) local, (ii) have eldering/shepherding/overseeing in some form, (iii) preach the gospel, (iv) share the sacraments, I love and respect what’s happening and recognize that many of them realize the potential of the local congregation as much as or more than model (a) above.

(c) do-it-yourself "church": the individual says, “I determine what will fulfill me spiritually” and floats from conference to small group to listening to sermons on his or her iPod. The person is not involved in a regular local gathering, not under someone's eldering/shepherding/overseeing, is not sharing the sacraments. This last option, unlike the first two, will prove to be a dead-end for spiritual development and kingdom expansion.

Bottom line: I oppose (c), but don’t read that as opposition to (b).

Posted by Kevin Miller at January 16, 2006 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

January 11, 2006

George Barna's New Book: Revolutionary or Revolting?

The blogosphere has offered plenty o’ chatter on George Barna’s latest book, Revolution. For favorable comment, read my occasional-email-pal Andrew Jones (full disclosure: the Tall Skinny Kiwi once named me “Best Emerging Critic Ever”). For unfavorable comment, read Sam Storms or the re-posts by Kevin Michael Cawley (full disclosure: I ate lunch with Sam once and agreed with virtually everything he said, which must make him wise).

In my review in Christianity Today, I first tried to summarize the book’s thesis:

Storm the barricades! According to researcher George Barna, we’re in the midst of a “spiritual revolution that is reshaping Christianity, personal faith, corporate religious experience, and the moral contours of the nation.”

Who’s leading the coup d’état? Some 20 million people, dubbed Revolutionaries, who live “a first-century lifestyle based on faith, goodness, love, generosity, kindness, and simplicity” and who “zealously pursue an intimate relationship with God.”

If true, this is amazing news, the best for American Christians in generations. But before we break out the party poppers, we should note that, like every revolution, this one has a loser: the local church.

Unlike the Great Awakenings, which brought people into the church, this new movement “entails drawing people away from reliance upon a local church into a deeper connection with and reliance upon God.” Already “millions of believers have stopped going to church,” so Barna expects that in 20 years “only about one-third of the population will rely upon a local congregation as the primary or exclusive means for experiencing and expressing their
faith.” Down will go the number of churches, donations to churches, and the cultural influence of churches.

Are you worried about the church where you were baptized, taught, married, and given Communion? That’s only a “congregational-formatted ministry,” one of many ways to “develop and live a faith-centered life. We made it up.” Writes Barna, “Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God).” He doesn’t reveal God’s boundaries for church involvement, but they don’t seem hard to get over.

Barna illustrates with two fictional characters who “eliminated church life from their busy schedules.” Why? They did not find a ministry “that was sufficiently stimulating” and “their church, although better than average, still seems flat.” Too bad for the lowly local church that people today insist on “unique, highly personalized church experiences.”

So where are the Revolutionaries going? To “mini-movements” such as home schooling, house churches, Bible studies at work, and Chris Tomlin worship concerts. What matters is a godly life, so “if a local church facilitates that kind of [godly] life, then it is good. And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of a congregation-based faith, then that, too, is good.”

• To see the 3 questions I then ask of this thesis, read the full review.
• To read 2 corrections I’d make to this review, and to hear reactions I’m getting, see my next post.

Posted by Kevin Miller at January 11, 2006 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

January 6, 2006

Sense & Sensitivity: Why It’s Time to Abandon the Seeker-Sensitive Model

To its credit the seeker movement has made church leaders everywhere more sensitive to the presence of non-Christians in our congregations. But, as the epoch of the seeker-church continues to wane, what enduring lessons will we carry with us into the future? Curt Coffield, a worship leader at Shoreline Community Church in Monterey, California, and former worship leader at Willow Creek, notes that newcomers have changed. “People aren’t coming as much to be convinced of the relevance of Christianity as they are coming with a hunger for God.”

As the church moves further away from familiar cultural paradigms, the paradigms that gave rise to seeker-churches, we need to seriously rethink the assumptions behind “seeker-sensitive” ministry.

At my church we are resurrecting the ancient language of hospitality to understand our call to love unknown people in our post-Christian culture. In ages past, travelers in the harsh lands of the Middle East often depended upon the hospitality of strangers for survival. Their principle of hospitality was simple: host first, ask questions later. Hospitality was not dependent upon a guest’s identity—only their need.

When Abraham went out to greet three strangers (recorded in Genesis 18) he took this idea of Bedouin hospitality a step further. When the visitor is an ordinary person of equal rank, the host merely rises. But Abraham welcomes the strangers by bowing low to the ground, and he offers himself as their “servant” even though he was a very wealthy man with servants of his own.

Abraham asks no questions. He expects no payment. He places no conditions upon his hospitality. He merely welcomes these total strangers as honored guests worthy of his very best food, effort, and attention. Only later, after the strangers have eaten and rested, does Abraham engage in conversation and discover their true divine identity.

Throughout the Scriptures we find that God is concerned with the treatment of strangers. He commands his people to act fairly toward strangers (Exodus 22:21), to provide food for them (Leviticus 19:10), and to love them as one of their own (Leviticus 19:34). In the New Testament three apostles write repeatedly about the importance of hospitality (Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; 3 John 1:5; 1 Tim 2:3; Tit 1:8). But it is Jesus who lifts the importance of hospitality to a divine level.

“Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in…Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” (Matthew 25:34-36, 40)

Christians in the monastic movement later codified the biblical ethic of hospitality as Benedictine Rule #53: “All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say, ‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me.’”

The abbot of the monastery was expected to personally welcome guests and wash their feet. If the abbot was in a season of fasting, he would interrupt the fast to eat with the guest. Only after extending his warmest hospitality would the abbot engage in conversation with the stranger, learn their identity and story, and invite them to worship with the community.

These principles of Christian hospitality have been practiced since the time of Abraham, but in the modern age the church abandoned the traditional language of loving strangers in favor of a new dialect. We called it “seeker sensitivity.” The seeker church movement has taken the Bedouin and monastic idea of hospitality (host first, ask questions later) and reversed it. Now, thanks to the influence of business practices and marketing, the church tries to discover everything possible about its target guests, and then hosts according to their predetermined expectations. The result has been a radical shift in the way Christians worship and express their devotion to Christ, and a dehumanizing of Christian hospitality.

Where market research replaces the simple call to love strangers, the responsibility to be hospitable is no longer felt by individual members of the church—the music, sermon, and worship service have all been test-engineered to do the job instead. Market analysis has also shown that many people prefer to visit a church anonymously, so seeker-driven churches will often avoid identifying newcomers. Jesus may be among us in the form of a stranger, but we would never know it unless he filled out a response card.

In our changing cultural setting is anonymity still the right value for hospitality? Does sensitivity to non-Christians mean having to ignore Biblical rites, language, and church traditions? What does it mean in our day to honor strangers as Christ among us?

Some younger church leaders, myself included, believe that we need to abandon the seeker/believer dichotomy in the church and practice a “radical hospitality” instead. As another pastor notes:

A worshipping community which is radically hospitably to outsiders is appealing to a spiritually-minded generation who can readily spot “spin and marketing.”

This radical hospitality means a return to the Abrahamic and Bedouin principle of “host first, ask questions later.” Rather than trying to determine our target audience’s desires in advance, we should welcome strangers indiscriminately into our tent/monastry/church and honor them by authentically revealing who we are. As St. Chrysostom, the 4th century pastor, said, “Hospitality is not manifested in the richness of our fare, but in the generosity of our attitude.”

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 6, 2006 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

January 3, 2006

The Blessing of Blogs: Is the New Media Good for the Church?

The weblog phenomenon is being felt in every sector of our culture including the church. Some are heralding the blogosphere as an egalitarian “new media” that is changing the way people communicate and process ideas. But will blogs foster communication and understanding among God’s diverse people, or inflame our divisions by giving all believers, mature and immature, an equal voice? Dr. Craig Blomberg, professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, begins our new year by questioning the blessings of blogs.

I’m hardly an expert on blogging. My own ministry has been critiqued once or twice by bloggers, and my experiences with their postings have largely led me to ignore them. When Out of Ur ran a controversial story about a good friend of mine this fall, I read and contributed to the responses with interest for several weeks. That is the sum total of my experience with blogs. But it’s enough for me to raise some questions. If Marshall McLuhan was even partly right that “the medium is the message,” then what message does the medium of blogging send?

At first glance, one might argue that a blog is no different than an e-mail, or a letter to an editor in a traditional newspaper or magazine, or those old-fashioned communiqués that were hand-written and sent through something now called snail-mail. For private individuals who daily record their thoughts and experiences, it corresponds closely to what used to be called a journal or a diary. There can be good ones and bad ones, carefully and creatively written or barely intelligible to anyone but their authors. They can contain profound perspectives worth reading and pondering or banal drivel that at best wastes your time and at worst pollutes your mind. But all those options have always been possibilities with older forms of writing as well.

Is there anything distinctive about blogging? The most obvious answer is the ease of access in getting one’s remarks “published.” A traditional letter went only to its addressée. E-mails go at most to a personally selected distribution lists. Magazines and newspapers reject numerous “letters to the editor” for every one they publish. Diaries and journals have normally been intended for the author’s eyes only. But when I read a friend’s daily blog, all I have to do is click on “X Comments,” type my response, and within seconds it appears on my computer screen as something anyone in the world can imbibe with the right web address and technology. True, some blog sites have filters to screen out certain language or pictures, while others have real people who may decide to censor correspondence. But the percentage of comments that still make it into (virtual) print still seems unprecedented.

And what of the choice to solicit responses to a blog posting on a particularly controversial subject? With unprecedented ease of access comes the temptation to “shoot from the hip” and respond with little thought or care for how one comes across. Are “Christian” blogs noticeably better in this respect? Or does the lack of a filter for all but the worst of responses almost inherently set up the readership for having to deal with extremists (in either tone or content) on both sides of a divisive issue? Of course, one can learn a lot from seeing how the far ends of a spectrum react. But is the church of Jesus Christ edified and built up? Are non-Christians who choose to peruse the conversation likely to be attracted to the faith? Will mediators and peacemakers win out over the rabble rousers? I’m not yet convinced that the answers to any of these questions are affirmative.

Besides, what messages are we sending when we allow bloggers or those who respond to them to post almost any linguistic utterance at will for all the world to read? To the undiscriminating, surely the answer is that even the most meaningless, intimate, hateful, crude or careless thought deserves an outlet enabling others to talk back. From a non-theological perspective, this is the ultimate demeaning of human language. From a Christian perspective, it may be an offense to the Word who alone gives human communication grace. But then, you might not be reading these words if it weren’t for a blog site. So am I overreacting?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 3, 2006 | Comments (20) | TrackBack