Wow.

Amen. Absolutely hilarious and absolutely true.

I probably agree with what you have said here. But because of the weight of this issue, I don't find your sarcasm funny. Don't forget that even though McLaren might not be as "talented" as you...you both play for the same "team."

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue, Mark. Same here. In an attempt to distance themselves from old-fashioned fundamentalism, I think that Emergent has leaned too far out of the window theologically. Even though I love Blabla-McLaren and the boys (sorry, and of course girls) for much of their great insight, they are really freaking out (think about their meeting with the "Emerging Synagogue movement", in which they want to further the Kingdom with likeminded Jews).

Danny from Germany

This rant had me howling so loud, the rest of my church office just about called 911 to get me an ambulance.

Too funny, points well taken, and I think for once you were sarcastic without an unnecessary layer of "jerk-ness" that sometimes creeps in to a lot of the posturing that occurs on both sides of these exchanges.

I say exchanges, because it is clear nobody is in a real conversation with each other.

Thanks for stepping out in the same spirit as Jerome who lamented the loss of sarcasm and irony as essential teaching tools in the church many many years ago.

Oh! What a stand you took! How did you ever summon the courage to stand up to James Dobson by "not promoting the event"?

How sad that in the least-churched city in America, 5000 have turned to someone with such hatred in his heart as their guide to a more Christ-like life!

Eek. The added "weight" of slander is probably unnecessary...

Oh please Mark, quit proof-texting. You're proving McLaren right with your words.

Good comments Mark.

Some of you guys are waaaaay too sensitive.

It's sad to see we have moved from 'contending for the faith (yes fight)' to wanting to slap box
or maybe even tickle fight for the faith.

What Driscoll said needed said. It needed said without the beating around the bush, I'm OK you're OK p.c. junk.

Ron

i like mclaren. i like pagitt. i like driscoll. i like gay people. i didn't realize i had to choose sides.

mark you are entitled to a rant just as much as everyone else is. i disagree with you not so much in your ideas as much as in your tone.

wisdom and grace as we work this out.

Amazing. Bravo.

And if you liked Driscoll's shellacking of McLaren, then you'll really enjoy Doug Wilson's firebombing of the same: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1895.

The word I settled on in the final version of the draft for the book was "inextricable" not inexorably - though I do like the nuanced meaning of inexorably a bit more.

And, being part Native American I think the Tonto reference was a bit over the top - but maybe I am just too sensitive.

Here's a quotation from the McLaren article:

"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."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear Brian urging not only conservatives but liberals, too, to be cautious... not to suspend judgement all together, but to take the time to get things right. I can't understand why anyone would think that's a bad thing.

I'm just happy to know that I am not the only married hetero lesbian trapped in a man's body. Can we start a support group now?

Dude, I want you to join my new "Sledghammer Society" You and I can start a revolution in the "emerging" arena to tell all the wishy washy blowhards that there is this pesky little thing called "The Bible" that they will have to deal with at some time in their lives, after of course they get done talking about how to "do" Church in a cool candlelit way.

Mark

Great wit and humor. I love the male lesbian bit. It is sad that Brian cannot figure out how to answer the simple question without making it more complex than it out to be. True, there are a few on the "extreme" right that may not seem to be to graceful in their response.

Yet, I wonder if this can be taken a bit out of proportion. Are not both active homosexuals and fundamental Christians caught in a pinch? These Christians are responding to the militant factions of the homosexual agenda and are then called unloving, because of how individual gays may respond. Well, how about the poor Christian who is constantly under attack by the militants who try shoving their agenda down the fundamentalist's throat? Should we not have as much concern for our fellow brethren as we do for the un-regenerate; both seem to be unfortunately caught in the cross-fire?

How are we supporting our brethren in this dilemma? It does seem we quickly run to the aid of the un-regenerate while leaving our fellow brothers out in the cold. Likewise, how does one lovingly express that one cannot defend same-sex marriage, without being seen by some gays to be graceless?

I wonder if we would consider Jesus' response to the Pharisees as being gracious. His response may have marginalized many of these people. Yet, on a more personal level Jesus was able to show the loving grace in reaching Nicodemus (sp?) and other Jewish leaders. Is it not similar to the tree/forest metaphor? Some Christians are deeply concerned and fighting against where the forest (gay political movement) is going, but when meeting up with individual trees are more able to share the grace cited in 1 Peter.

Respectfully,
PuritanD

Mark, it's hard to hear your concern and not see you as a conservatice wingnut, when you use such perjorative language. To call us homo-evangelical, describe Doug Pagitt as Tonto (which means stupid), and to claim God's feeling are hurt, make real dialogue, and openess to correction where it is needed very hard.

I fear you will polarise people. I'm sure your a great pastor, and yet, this seems so cutting, and abrasive, and so lacking in concern out of love.

I thought we were supposed to correct and approach one another in love, not sarcasm and rants....sigh.

Just a suggestion, but did you approach Brian, and Doug personally, share concern and dialogue with them? Did you suggest that they and you dialogue in public, so that people could hear your concerns, and yet see that you are all christians and love and care for each other.

I think that would be far more powerful, that opening up here...I wonder if that hurts God's feelings more than anything?

In my heterosexual relationship with my wife one of the first lessons that she taught me about love was that it contained no room for sarcasm. Sarcasm always involved dragging someone else down and if I wanted a truly healthy relationship that I would not indulge in this immature immitation of humour. I often see points where I could indulge myself but have striven to contain it for the sake of my relationship.

I actually agree with most of your comments but then lost your 'truth' because of the lack of love.

I am genuinely troubled that a leader such as yourself, someone in your position, would show so much disrespect to your fellow brothers and sisters. Of course you are entitled to disagree but to do so with such sarcasm and venom is really not becoming of someone in your position. And do you really need me to tell you that 1 Peter 3:15 has NOTHING to do with the issue in hand. Stop trying to score cheap points and humbly and graciously engage with the issue.

Bravo, Mark!
Wonderful satire - and satire always hurts because it exposes the truth.

For all of you jumping on Mark's case for his style of response, could it be that his tone merely conveys his feeling that we wouldn't even be reading this if McLaren would just be faithful and true to scripture? His closing, if the rest of the post doesn't, should display that he feels this is a totally absurd conversation to even be having.

Long live the male lesbian!!!

driscoll, i'm with matt. you're not engaging the issue: you're trivializing your own ministry by ad hominem attacks and cheap throw-away lines like your opener and closer, which betray any compassion you have for gays. by failing to stick to the issue of what it means to carry the Gospel, that we are all under the Gospel, you let your argument disintegrate into a crap-throwing contest.

As a pastor of "nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities" (bragging rights, indeed) -- I'm extremely disappointed by the tone and implications included in this article.

What is expected to be accomplished by this line of attack, beside further polarizing either side?

It's shameful. But, if doctrine is the highest aim, and not reaching the individual sinner (homosexual or not) -- then I suppose this is an okay "rant" to publish on a "Christian" site.

Mark, if you would like to discuss the concerns I have regarding this posting, please e-mail me.
Daniel

My question is why did you guys take out the bestiality quote?

If you are out of line then admit it. If not then put it back.

Not to get off topic here, but let's not find insults where they weren't intended. Tonto means "stupid" ... in Spanish and Portuguese, but the Long Ranger spoke in English. So I doubt there's a connection. In Portuguese the word pronounced payday means flatulence, but when my American friends use the word in a sentence, I can distinguish the difference.

I don't think Mark needs me to defend him, but I took the rant to be a light-hearted jab at a couple of friends with whom he doesn't fully agree. Or, maybe I'm just full of kemosabe.

I know I am commenting on the smallest piece of this whole exchange. I kind of got tired of trying to figure out who said what, who was being sarcastic, who was right, wrong, or partly right or wrong. But MALE LESBIAN? Am I one? Holy cow. My wife is gonna flip when I let her in on this. How long have I been one? Is she gonna make me go get counseling when I tell her. Can I still pastor? Will I be permitted on the ELCA campus (followed the postings of the commentors)? Is there a message board somewhere I can go catch up on when I should have known I was a...a...male lesbian? Can anyone give me Dr. Phil's number?

McLaren has this kind of response coming to him. His non-answer answers were bound to come back and bite him eventually. By failing to make a clear, Scripturally-backed statement about homosexuality, he has backed himself into a corner. The situation is so ludicrous, it can hardly be responded to in any way BUT sarcasm.

The more I hear from McLaren, the more out there he sounds. I think his days as the defacto leader of the Emerging folly are numbered.

Thank you for not deleting my previous comment.

I will however disagree with your reason for removing the statements from driscoll's post

You stated:

"As some have noted, one sentance 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."

Would you not have removed it simply because it was downright offensive?

(This comment here is also not related to the homosexuality issue, but it is related to dealing with issues with integrity. Maybe even bigger than the homosexual question)

BTW - since my first two comments were deleted I will affirm that I probably share a similar position to Driscoll on the matter in question. But I'd much rather have McC's ability to graciously communicate.

It's too bad that this post overshadowed what could and should have been a great discussion on yesterday's Question 2.

You have a long thoughtful quote from McLaren posted in the middle of this rant, but choose not to address his points in favor of a few more pejorative statements. 'Brokeback injunction?' 'We'll all meet at the labyrinth and do a finger painting?' What about what he actually says about sexuality being complex and multi-layered?

And the 'male lesbian' thing was one of the fastest ways to trivialize the struggles and marginalization of REAL homosexuals. Nice one.

Do you call all those gay couples in your church 'homo-evangelicals'? Did that help them realize how much Jesus loves them?

This isn't gay. It's tragic. Too bad you had to go this route in responding to McLaren without actually saying anything.

While I am thankful that one offensive line was removed from this post, I still feel it does little to improve it. In my opinion, this post should be resubmitted by Mark or removed. It demonstrates some of most unfortunate mudslinging in the church, not something to be promoted on a site like this.

Peace,
Jamie

I'm not sure where the facination with always answering the question comes from, especially if it it would be, as Brian says, unhelpful.

Jesus seemed to rarely answer straight questions, instead turning them on their head. He gives a clear answer, the value of answering the question right now is outweighed by the hurt it would cause.

It all rings of the 'I have a black friend' argument. Great that you have a church which acceps people of all kinds, but why the big need to know what Brian thinks on this one issue, and more to the point to raise it at every public occassion?

Jason and Hamo make a great point - gracious communication is a wonderful thing.

Steve

I know that rants are a blogging tradition. But I have seen, in my own church, church members ranting against each other on their blogs. Oh, they may never name names, but anyone who knows them knows. It does not bring healing, only more wounding.

Rant about things. Rant about issues. Go for it. Express your opinions flamboyantly.

But ranting about people? "As long as I'm half-joking, it's OK to say whatever I want, in as hurtful a way as I want, because hey, I'm just being honest"?

Bull.

this is in response to justin's comment (who is my close friend). a man on the same mission as us occasionally missing the mark doesn't justify slander. this is not how jesus teaches us to deal with our bothers.

And now you have removed a good number of the comments that took issue with the tone of the whole post?

There's more wrong with this piece than Mark's line about goat sex, and removing the comments of those of us calling for Mark to listen to the very Scripture he quoted seems odd.

Steve, I couldn't agree more.

Great article. Another Driscoll homerun.

The question I have is: Why is this even a post? Why is this even going on?

What is the point?

Do the interested parties actually believe that this helps?

Whatever.
Whether I like or dislike holds no weight for me if I see truth, love, faith and hope in what I read. Shouldn't I see these things in a written conversation among Christians? Anyways - I have learned a lot from McClaren and from Driscoll and from Padgitt - and from my three year old son, who likes to wear his mom's high heals, make up and fingernail polish.

God forbid that the truth be brought be one who is seen to be a sinner! Remind anyone of a messiah we know?

Dear sir,

I don't clearly know what was the final intention of your original post. Maybe to make some fun. However, I believe that it could be received wrongly, and perceived as truly right-wing.

Let me say, for your information, that I am a male Christian believer that happens to struggle with same-sex attractions (ssa). You can read my testimony and all the difficulties that being Christian and homosexual brought to my life.

I was surprised when you mentioned all the gay couples in your church and the number of ssa people in your community. And I was even more surprised that you could be lacking sensitivity on your post, despite the fact that you know how this can be perceived.

I fully agree with your position, even with the fact that you did not support Dobson's meeting (bold and good for you), but the way you expressed your opinion was unfortunate.

Concerning the emergent debate on homosexuality, probably it is necessary to include people who understand about it. I would say, as an ex-gay person, please do not compromise the gospel, but don't close the door of salvation to many that like myself are there, are Christians and happen to struggle with homosexuality.

I believe that it is possible to speak about brokenness, about abuse, and all the roots of homosexuality in people, and I do believe that it is still possible to help homosexuals to come out from the lifestyle, basically through loving relationships. There is still lots of debate on the origin of homosexuality, but so far there IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE linking this behaviour with genetcis, and hence the door is open to help people to deal with the wounds of their souls, and become integer.

The danger with opinions, though understandable and logic, that are expressed ironically, is that one can feel betrayed by the Church. Betrayed because there is one public speech and a true one for the "inner circle", showing nevertheless that prejudice is still present.

I believe that we should approach homosexuals as co-sinners ... from broken person to another broken person. Yes we need clear lines on holiness and we need desperatly not to compromise the principles of the Kingdom, but this is achievable if things are done lovingly. Reactions are always the consequence of brokenness, and broken people don't expect more judegement and rejection.

I would like respectfully to bring the following Scripture to mind (Is 61.1-2, The Message)

"The Spirit of GOD, the Master, is on me because GOD anointed me. He sent me to preach good news to the poor, heal the heartbroken, announce freedom to all captives, pardon all prisoners. GOD sent me to announce the year of his grace"

Thanks for reading this post.

Yours in Christ,

Times Of Refreshing

Jesus still answered questions... and people certainly understood them. They just didn't like them. That's why he was crucified...

This is sad, in so many ways. Sad that this what one of Amaerica's 50 most influential pastors finds funny. Sad to read the glee in piling on with attaboy comments. Even sadder that Leadership Journal & CTI deem this a valid editorial choice.

But most sad, to me at least, is that someone like Brian McLaren pokes their head out and attempts to frame this painful piece of krytonite as something other than what Karl Rove & the secular left have reduced it to - Brian calls for quiet, so calm, for prayer & reflection. And this is what erupts.

As a general rule - when someone starts by defending themselves, they must know somewhere deep within themselves just how offensive they are about to be.

Bob,

Well said.

Peace,
Jamie

Andrew - certainly both were true at times - but there are a lot of times when Jesus answered a completely different question than the one presented in words - especially when it was one that, whatever he answered, people would use against him.

As an addendum
I would say though that it wasn't simply what he said that led to his death, but who he said it to, who he valued and what he did.

Nevertheless - the obsession with 'answering the question', does make me wonder - why is it so important to people what Brian think's on this one issue?

Great post! I wish I still lived in Seattle, I'd attend Mark's church for sure! For me, I'm sick and tired of the non-response, there-is-no-right-answer, I-can't-be-pinned-down-because-this-is-a-conversation deception. Long live the male lesbian!!

It would appear that the gloves have now come off. On both sides, judging from the reactions to this post by various bloggers. The fact remains, however, that it's probably more offensive to water down biblical morality than it is to be outraged by those who water it down. The glory of grace cannot be known except against the backdrop of the blackness of sin. Those who whitewash sin simultaneously rob us of grace. This is truly a cause for outrage.

Hmmm...lots of irritated comments at the satirical style of the article. Probably a lot of the same people who hate "South Park" and "The Simpsons" for showing the unfortunate realities of our culture in distinctly humorous (and admittedly) shocking ways.

Also, it seems to me that, in his response and clinging to Scripture, Mark is talking less out of hatred and more out of a distinct desire to follow in the heralded steps of Erasmus and Martin Luther (anyone ever read "In Praise of Folly"? Pretty sure it wasn't very "loving"...) Anyway, though I found the sensitivity toward the issue in Brian's article genuinely touching, I can't help but wonder what my generation's (I'm 22) legacy to the Church is going to be. Often, I feel that we've chucked the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in our efforts to relevant. Sometimes I wonder how much longer we can continue to act like we hate our own historical faith...

Until recently, Driscoll was part of the emergent conversation, my theory is he went overboard and an attempt to make sure everyone knew he no longer was.

I am a member of Mark's church in Seattle. Yes,
Mark can be cutting and sarcastic. That is his
style. He merges those characteristics with
a fantastic sense of humor and a deep knowledge
and devotion to God's Word. One thing he is not,
is un-loving as posted by some above. He loves
everyone that comes in the door and he makes sure
that even if they only visit once that they hear the
Gospel and are pointed to Jesus. Just
last Sunday he reminded everyone in attendance
that our focus at Mars Hill is Jesus Christ.
He concluded his message my saying, "Men need
Jesus, women need Jesus, all races need Jesus,
heterosexuals need Jesus, homosexuals need Jesus,
tall people need Jesus, short people need Jesus, in
fact everyone needs Jesus."
When all is said and done when Mark stands
before his Creator he will be told, "well done
thou good and faithful servant. Enter in."

I really am scratching my head over all these responses; the pleas for sensitivity, the scolding that such joking should not come from such an influential pastor. Why don’t I hear all this whining when God’s word is tread upon by emergent leaders? The desire for unity-at-all-costs has become an idol, and orthodoxy is continually laid on the alter of that idol. I swear; it’s getting to the point where if someone wrote a funny piece on cannibalism or pedophilia, someone would decry how the lack of sensitivity would cause some seeker cannibal not to want to go to church!!!! What ever happened to shame?

We theological conservatives (aka Bible-believers) would “dialogue” with you more if YOU believed in the authority of God’s Word and would repent of unbiblical positions once confronted. But you don’t. Most speak of a lack of clarity of the text or some such foolishness – sounding more like higher-critics and less like supposed believers! Dialogue without change is worthless. Clothing your theological wishy-washiness and cowardice in the garb of post-modern academia does not make your movement more attractive or legitimate. Why should we continue to engage in dialogue about that which is clearly forbidden by God? Your goal can only be to change opinion by creating confusion. We see you emergent leaders for what you are; fence-riders, biblical-revisionists, deniers of the Lordship of Christ and the requirement of personal holiness, self-important wolves in sheep’s clothing. You who are truly redeemed need to repent and leave this liberal movement before you make shipwreck of your souls. Those of you who can’t laugh at yourselves or your movement need to actually get a soul.

I’ll be happy when the emergent movement sheds its evangelical skin, disenfranchises those members who are actually redeemed, and joins the UCC and all the other liberal organizations on the trash-heap of history. What good is it to have conversations, fight for social justice, take stands on nothing – sparing sinners from Godly conviction, if one winds up losing one’s soul forever?

Wow.

I am one of those people who believe that homosexual practice is not in tune with the way of Jesus. However, I feel Brian's sentiments and agree that it is a lot more complex than I give it credit for. Therefore, I am very careful about the issue, because I don't know all of the story with everyone (as stated in Brian's example).

It is posts like this that really make me feel like leaving the church. I spent half of my life being berated by attitude's like this. The only thing I feel from reading this post from Mark is arrogance. I also admit there are some in the emerging conversation that can come across the same way as well. I do all I can to make sure I don't.

My wife was mentioning to me about someone who was born with both female and male "parts." There was a struggle with whether or not this person was male or female (from others). She/he has a female partner. How would this post be taken by someone like that?

Regardless, and I've heard this many times, but how many sins in the church are treated as more acceptable than homosexuality? I think there has been much more damage done in the name of heterosexuality than the other way around.

I even hesitate to post just because this discussion seems to end nowhere. I am encouraged about Scot McKnight's approach to the issue than this (www.jesuscreed.org). I would recommend you take a look at that thread to possibly have an honest dialogue with the issue.

And the whole comment on the labyrinth and finger-painting thing was extremely offensive to me. While I don't believe it to be the end-all of spiritual practice, it has been one that has transformed me and many others.

It's attitudes and posts like this I have to defend with my non-believing friends all of the time.

I cannot believe that after all of the hateful and negative comments that McLaren has made about traditional Christians that people on this blog would actually attack Driscoll for using Sarcasm - the only literary tool McLaren uses when talking about conservative Christians. The hypocrisy of the "tolerant" emergent movement is mind-boggling.

Ryan,

With all due respect, that is a condescending assumption and ridiculous over-simplification. I strongly believe in the intelligent use of sattire and humour, as is seen in Scripture and historic Christianity. What Mark wrote doesn't even compare. It was petty, childish and offensive.

Eric

"...not in tune with the way of Jesus"?!?!!

We need to see sin with the abhorrence that God sees it with. All sin. Saying something like homosexuality is "not in tune with the way of Jesus" sounds like a line used while sipping your late at Starbucks. You are talking about the thrice-holy God of the universe!!! Please remember who it is about which we're speaking and have enough bravery to speak plainly. Your language is not the language of a martyr, but of someone overly concerned that they're regarded as a friend by everyone. As Christ said, unless you hate your mother and father etc. (in contrast to your love for me) you are not worthy to be called my disciple. It seems that you don't even hate a sin enough to speak boldly or plainly for fear that you won't be esteemed by perpetrators of that sin.

Truth is love.

McLaren made a point that might have helped Mark in his in his conversation with the "orgasm lover." In his post, he says he asked the young couple who inquired about homosexuality, "Why is this question important to you." Rather than making pronoucements, he asked a pastoral question, and gave a pastoral response. He would have, I would guess, given a very different response the young man Mark spoke to--along the lines that having anal sex with lots of men is 1) a dangerous way to live, and a sure way to a horrific death from AIDS and 2) incompatible with the way of Jesus.

I worry about the evangelical church and the way we play smackdown with people who disagree with us, and our fixation with homosexuality. Our churches are ripe with sin--the sins of power and wealth and idolatry and adultury--and too few of us live the kind of life Jesus called his disciples to. We have enormous planks in our eyes, and we can't see clearly to help our non Christian brothers with the grains of sand in their. Instead, we blindly poke them in the eye. McLaren's five year moratorium seems related to this. Let's get some of the planks out of our eyes, and then try and help the rest of the culture see clearly.

This just reminds me of why I don't like church and Christianity anymore. Emerging is the last try for me, after 25 years of BS like this.

Either you want to "save' others or you want to judge them. Which is it? Huh? I'll put my money on judge. Anybody can judge others. I don't need fancy degrees and a 5000 member fan club to judge people. When Jesus ate with “sinners and publicans” did he beat them over the head like the Pharisees would? No. Those for whom he saved his sarcasm were those who should see but wouldn't. Jesus blasted the religious blowhards, not the regular, everyday sinner. And which of these is most offensive today? I'll take GLBTs any day over a religious blowhard. And so will an increasing number of North Americans and Europeans. Humility is key, my friend.

Driscoll sounds more like a politician cunningly distancing himself to save his ass, than someone interested in finding truth. The only people this will play to are your fans in the proverbial choir. But I forgot, you have a large proverbial choir, so it's ok.

Peace brother. Looks like church as usual.

Jesus spoke out against greed too didn't he? Anyone in this discussion living on the street because they've given everything to the poor?
Talk about behaviour not fit for a martyr. If we're calling sin sin here then I'm going to shut up.
Maybe we all should...

CTC:

You know, you're right. We need to call sin what it is. Homosexuality is sin. Gluttony is sin. Lying is sin. Cheating on our taxes is sin. Failing to provide justice for the poor is sin. Not hating our parents and siblings is sin. Not reading the Bible the right way is sin. Not coming to the right theological conclusions is sin. Not accepting the rationalizations of church leaders as part of the canon is sin. We need to work hard to rid the church of sin, and work even harder to keep sinners out.

Hey, where did everybody go?

What is missing from this is exegesis of the relevant Biblical text. Though I agree with Mark's conclusions, it is more profitable if we let the text speak and be the final authority. If MacLaren thinks that he is correct, then as a Christian minister he should deal with the text and not give us his "opinion" on the issue; the world is already filled with to many of those as it is.

Wow, Mark, if you only would have said this against the orthodox church, then they would all be behind you.

If all people can attack is your tone, you're in good company. They couldn't come up with much against Christ either.

Someone needs to tell Jesus that calling names, speaking sarcastically in order to humiliate a ridiculous position (and perhaps even the people who espouse it), and definitely against something that is wrong is un-Christlike.

The last picture I saw of Mark D. looked as though he has put on a few pounds. Now I am not calling him fat, but I am just speaking the truth in love. He apparently has issues with gluttony. I am uncertain why he wants to take pot shots at BM and others when he obviosuly has severe issues himself.

I don't think he is funny, right or spiritual for that matter. Honestly, I visited his church in Seattle that he often boasts about being so large. Not impressed in the least.

Pride comes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Marc D. seems to be setting himself up for a mighty fall. It's not if, its when.

Eric wrote: With all due respect, that is a condescending assumption and ridiculous over-simplification. I strongly believe in the intelligent use of sattire and humour, as is seen in Scripture and historic Christianity. What Mark wrote doesn't even compare. It was petty, childish and offensive.

I'm in the process of reading Luther's "Bondage of the Will", and Mark the same technique that Luther used to dismantle Erasmus. It does compare, quiet closely in fact. And the scenario is similar as well (Biblical truth vs. liberal contrivance)

I think "they can dish it out but they can't take it" applies here. Similar to a previous poster, I see a distinct hint of hypocrisy in some of the replies critical of Mr. Driscoll. But then again, I expected little different. Like I said, "the emperor has no clothes..."

I want to vomit.

Exegetically, I'm sure I agree with Mark Driscoll on issues related to homosexual practice. I certainly have none of the hand-wringing angst over the issue that Brian McLaren has. And yet, it is exactly Driscoll's sort of mockery that gives McLaren his rationale for waffling on the issue. This sort of mockery causes the world to scorn us as self-righteous Pharisees, and causes those most in need of the transforming power of Christ to turn away from us, the very people who should point them in the direction of that power.

Name-calling and cheap shots may well build a megachurch. Too many Christians love to point out gleefully the failings of those who are tempted in ways different than they themselves are. Makes them feel superior, I guess. But name-calling and cheap shots will never win the hearts of people who struggle with sinful desires that they themselves may not understand.

I'm embarrassed and ashamed of some of the people who claim to represent my side in this controversy. Whatever happened to, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more?"

sarcasm: the word comes from the Greek word sarkazein meaning "to tear flesh." is this really truth spoken in love? how can someone who claims he is trying to be like jesus use this type of language and call it humor? humor at the expense of another is cheap and wounding. far more heat than light.

I definitely agree with Mark on the issues, but his mean-spirited attitude and mockery make me hope that he seriously considers thinking more deeply about his responses before posting next time. Some of his comments (even after the edit) are shameful to the church.

Tim:

Your point is well taken. Let me try another route to make my point about language.

I met a man at our Sunday morning conversation-celebration who was matrimonially challenged. He shared with me that he has a sobriety allergy that causes him to have a penchant for one-flesh recreation that is not in tune with the way of Jesus. He also shared that he enjoys better living through pharmaceuticals. I told him that he was welcome to begin his faith-journey with us as we would move closer to God consciousness together.

Now, I am not teasing, nor am I making fun. But this is my point; why in heaven’s name, on a Christian blog, can we not use biblical language? We all (hopefully) know that we always speak in love when addressing unbelievers. I never said I want to chase sinners from the church. I notice that anytime somebody calls homosexuality a sin, this instant retort is “WELL, YOU’RE A SINNER TOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Are we not discussing McLaren’s view on homosexuality?

Can it be agreed upon that one little white lie is equally powerful to keep one out of heaven as a life of homosexuality? For goodness sakes, is not economy of language or topic allowed anymore in the age of fairness and tolerance?

And what is this sentence supposed to mean? “Not hating our parents and siblings is sin.” You’re joking, right? Have you never heard that verse exposited correctly? Oh wait, striving for correctness is close-minded. Never mind.

“Not accepting the rationalizations of church leaders as part of the canon is sin.” I don’t know if you think you’ve pinned me down, but I don’t even know that author of this blog.

When I read the couching of questions about homosexuality by McLaren, I think “ashamed of the gospel and God”. You can speak with conviction and still be loving. Faithful obedience to God’s word and a loving, welcoming demeanor are not mutually exclusive. But the demeanor without the truth of God’s word is the slippery slope to perdition.

At issue: Can the church tell God how they are going to worship? Upon what authority does the emergent church unbundle, bundle, or whatever? On their own and it must be rejected.

The Slippery Slope of the Emergent Church (as I have seen it)
1. Emergent church theology lures people with the cry of relevance--great! Relevant churches are good.
2. Then they say, to be relevant we need to be loving. Great---loving! Wahoo.
3. But, THEN they say to be loving, we need to be accepting...uh oh. Wait a second; by accepting they mean tolerant. I reject this; frankly this mushy fecal matter is unappealing and emboldens my conservativism. Behold, I am the backlash.

Can the "believer" tell God that His standard is unloving or that his forms are boring? Sure they can and they can continue sinning; of course and all that left for them is the anticipation of hell's flame--but, then again that truth from Hebrews 10 may be too unloving to talk about.

You may think you're justified in what you say. You may believe that you are upholding the gospel and the Name of Christ. You may think that everyone else should agree with you (if they are indeed a Christian). But my friend, you are sadly mistaken. You should choose your words wisely. The measure you have used to judge your fellow believers, the same measure with be used to judge you.

Smitty,

I'm not sure that you do know me. If you do, do I know you?

Mark - you need to think before you open your mouth, or grab a pen.

mark doesn't speak truth in love, he puts on sarcastic boxing gloves in an attempt to 'stand for truth.' the pats on the backs by mostly men in the blog responses sound like locker room encouragement. jesus doesn't need people to defend 'truth' but simply to represent him by loving people. which, in my opinion, brian is trying to do, and mark has not done--meanwhile mocking brian's attempts to love! making pronouncements or cracking offensive jokes about something being wrong actually doesn't help, but further alienates from people who need Jesus' love, which the gay community does more than ever--but not by the self-congratulatory locker room approach of driscoll.

It's really sad that Mark would rant so indiscriminately in such a public forum, even invoking Jesus' name as some sort of justification for his hubris. After reading Driscoll's post, I cancelled my upcoming trip to the Acts 29 Boot Camp. I spent the first twenty-five years of my life surrounded by leaders like Mark. The only difference was that they wore suits and claimed the King James Bible was reinspired in 1611.

If Mark was at a Seattle pub enjoying a beer with the elders of Mars Hill and said something like this, that would be one thing. People are prone to saying stupid things when they have too much beer in them. But I'm assuming that Mark wrote these words without the use of alcohol, which makes this post even more egregious.

After reading all this, I agree with Mark.

This is all just gay.

i do believe that some of us here would have taken Jesus to task for his "insensitivity" toward the moneychangers that he drove from the temple. (while others would have asked him to wait 5 years to discuss the issue.)
yes, truth with love is our highest goal. but is love without truth really better than the truth served straight up?

GENTLEMEN: Correct me if I am wrong, it seems that Mr.McClaren is now telling us that the emergent church is now going to wait for some theological pronouncment to occur 5 years from now, or so, on the question of the Bibles' Interpretation on the role of homosexuality within the church. Do I have that right??

Now, regardless of your position on this issue, either as a believer or as a pastor, it is hard not to see the flaw in this stance and maybe the flaw in the emergent movement from this very issue.

A point of definition is important here, and it seems to be lacking in the whole emergent church; the emergent movement does not believe in precident setting 'theology' as that would be a tacit tie to the 'orthodox' church and that might be interpreted by the new emergent attendees, who are the interpreters of their own theology, as traditional and tradition as defined in Websters, is the opposite of emergent.

Therefore, there is no tie, either explicit(episcopal, presbyterian, methodist) or implicit(Baptist, assembly of God, non-denominationals or Bibles with a faith statement)to the 'orthodox' faith. Therefore, a moratorium to wait for a theological pronouncment is LUDICRIS!!! From whom would it come???

UPDATE: An official report "The New Testament Interpretation of Homosexuality in light of Post-Modern Values" is now being edited by the Epicopal Bishops Standing Committee on theology, but it is behind schedual due to the fact that declining membership of the Episcopal Church has lead to a reduced budget.

In Christ

Mark - this is a rare kind of commentary. Witty. Provacative. Evangelical. Thank you.

I wonder why there are so few ex-gays having a say on this particular issue ...

1. Our approach to people should be done in love. This means following the three levels of relation that JR wisly highlighted. Homosexuals are welcome in Church, because, I believe that the behaviour is only a symptom of deeper brokenness. If we address first the brokenness and bring people to the cross, we'll se later changes. The point is that between their arrival to the church and the actual change in behaviour there may be a lapse of time. Are we willing to accompany them in this journey?

2. We cannot compromise the gospel and the principles of the Kingdom. I mean, sexual relations are only acceptable under the covenant and holiness of heterosexual marriage. All other sexual acitvity beyond marriage is simply sin. That did not change, though the society changed. I don't see any biblical reference for compromising God's original design.

3. Political correctness limits us from being relevant. But political incorrectness has made more harm than good, particularly in the homosexual issue. The gospel is relevant for each individual, struggling or not with same-sex attracitons. The attitude of the Church can make a huge difference.

4. From a pastoral point of view, I know that people need to feel safe within boundaries. We are there to provide the boundaries and the doctrinal reference. Our calling is to keep the principles of God's Kingdom as our set of values and as the boundaries for the people in our congregations.

I hope not to be perceived as extreme right minded, because I'm not. I will agree mostly with the need to change our way to relate with homosexuals, that gay people deserve respect and love and acceptance as anyone else. But I cannot compromise what is fundamental for me, a clear definition of what sin is and is not.

Times of Refreshing
NCXDS Ex-Gay Internet Ministries

I said my piece above but i was also just wondering what kind of pastor would need a clear line on the homosexual issue in order to be able to help the young man in the example Driscoll gives. I mean, I would imagine that even pro-gay ministers would be able to counsel a young man who wanted to have "anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms" and find plenty of reasons why this wasn't a good way to live. Pastoral ministry ain't about giving people a list of do's and don't's.

Just a comment:

In the Bible, excessive drinking is a sin. And yet today, the AMA calls it a "disease" and states it has a genetic component. Does this mean because of our greater knowledge,understanding, and relevancy, it is ok to continue "sinning" because of what we now know?
I do not understand why the church focuses so much on homosexuality. I know I am just struggling to take care of my own spiritual condition.

It's very sad but not really that suprising from Mark Driscoll.

Oh and Mike when Mark is before God, why will he be speaking to him in 16th century english:~)

Just food for thought on this whole loooong thingy.
Q: Was Elijah nothing but a modern inconsiderate and sarcastic blogger?
A: I report-you deceide (no I'm not with Fox-I simply believe in the authority of the scriptures--I know, that's another whole debate but bear with me)
Remember the story of Elijah challenging the prophets of baal? Here's, 1 Kings 18:27--first in NASB then NIV>
1Kings 18:27-It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he (baal)is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."
1Kings 18:27-At noon, Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!", he said. "Surely he (baal again)is a god. Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is asleep and must be awakened."

Now, I don't have a living Bible anymore, and I know it's a pharaphrase, but I think I remember it including in this passage the statement-"Perhaps he's (baal) on the toilet!"

So all you guys should give Elijah a hard time, along with the author of 1Kings, and maybe even the Holy Spirit for letting this slip past the heavenly editors and getting into the Bible-poor prophets of baal; so misunderstood.
Anyway, Elijah-"taunted", "mocked", them?

I would also like to mention 2 Thessalonians chapter 2-all of it!
Here's some outakes:
7.For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work...
10....with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not recieve the love of the truth so as to be saved.
11.For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,...
15. So then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught...

We must love the sinner while hating the sin. Never forgetting that we are all sinners saved by grace and christians can be mean sometimes. Homosexuality is sin, but so is glutony. But my friends, we must take a stand and not bend the gospel to accomodate a new, unscriptural, way of thinking.---Love ya all!

I'm embarrassed and deeply saddened by this article and frankly discouraged by the thought that Mark's angst and sharp languange is being communicated to 5000 people on a weekly basis. Comments like these are precisely why Brian would say we need to respond carefully in light of the historic legalism that has left a sour legacy to the people we serve.
If you find yourself getting a charge out of Mark's article, ask yourself, why. What is this rant encouraging. Support? Love? Prayer? Or debate, argument, and side choosing? Seeing through his inappropriate sarcasm and angst, I agree with the theological source of Mark's beliefs in the article. But if the medium is the message and I often believe it is, then wow, I'm saddened by whats being promoted here.

I think Mark's sarcasm has increased over the years. I've been listening to his sermons for 3-4 years now, and I've noticed more and more bitterness and sarcasm on his part. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that so many churches today don't teach the word of God...and Driscoll does...

His sarcasm is probably out frustration that he feels he is taking "crazy pills" whenever he reads something from the new 'emergent' movement...

just a thought...

CTC:
Yes- we are discussing McLaren's view on homosexuality. But here's the thing:

Why is Brian's perceived wishy-washyness on homosexuality any more annoying to you than the evangelical church's non-action and non-stance on greed and world poverty?

Most leaders, when questioned, will agree that greed is sin, and then our non-action speaks our non-stance.
But we seldom have a blogrant about that from a 5000 member church.

I talked to a young man the other day who was a believer and knew his bible well - he wanted to know if he could buy a $300,000 house instead of feed the poor because he liked the feeling of success.
His church was spending $8 million on their building...

Interesting...

First, let me admit that I know nothing about Mark Driscoll. I have heard of his church, but just barely. That being said, what we have here is classic satire. Now, it may be argued that with such a sensitive issue he could have been a bit more...well, sensitive. Perhaps. However, I happen to like satire a lot. I enjoyed Swift's A Modest Proposal- some of the folks here should read that. Or for those who are more into historically oriented things (translation: Geeks like me), there's always the "Provincial Letters" by Blaise Pascal. Great stuff. Also, try reading Galatians: I seem to recall Paul using a bit of harsh language, something about cutting off body parts and whatnot. Anyway, I think the most telling thing here is that very few here get as offended by McClaren's nonsensical, evan-jellyfish fluff as they do about Mark's "vitriole." And to those who believe that debates and choosing sides are wrong, then why bother posting that? Aren't you just committing your own wrong? Isn't that a self-refuting position?
Finally, from what I can tell, most of the satire and sarcasm is aimed not at homosexuals or homosexuality, but at the inability of emergent leaders like McClaren to respond Biblically. Mark made a joke about being a "male lesbian"- that's about as far as it goes. The Brokeback comment was a jab at the movie, not homosexuals per se. The rest were jokes about labyrinths and such, not homosexuals. (Granted, I read this after one line had already been removed by the moderator, so that might change my view.) All in all, I think the good title of an poor book fits describes many of the complaints here: "Adventures in Missing the Point."

"Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; but anyone who loves God is known by Him."

This post doesn't seem to be written with the grace and love of Christ dwelling in the heart of the writer but comes across as one who is puffed up by what he thinks he knows. What is equally sad, becaus ethe author presumes that he is right, he feels justified in what he is doing.

Anything written that opposes his view will only make him feel better. He's not taking any comment here that appears to be critical to heart; I suspect it only inflates his wounded sense of self that much more. It is extremely sad. I also find it sad that a magazine who claims be about Christian leadership would publish such hate.

Somebody please tell me that he can look the bloody, wounded Christ in the eyes and justify this spite.

Mark,

I am shocked and disappointed by the tone and hatred of your post. You have valid and important points to add to the conversation, but your insensitivity has meant that any constructive dialogue has been lost amidst the soundbites and point-scoring.

I would ask you to humbly ponder on how your post contributes to Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17.

I would also ask you to reconsider the assumption that sin must be "named and shamed" in order to bring about transformation, perhaps by glancing again at the story of the "woman by the well" in John 4, which involves no condemnation, only hope and thirst-quenching grace.

I do not believe that Brian's thoughtful and gracious words deserved this tirade, nor do I believe we should be seeking to tear down a fellow brother in Christ, particularly when he needs our prayers and support to help guide him in his own ministries, as everyone doing the work of Christ does.

"All this is just gay."

So who believes it when Driscoll suggests that he doesn't hate homosexuals?

My small group is now reading through Deuteronomy, chapter by chapter. It's a proverbial roller coaster ride of ancient rituals, cruel laws and obscure community rites. But in the midst of that there are these beautiful admonitions to fairness and compassion, wisdom and the like. The discontinuity makes our heads spin and makes the group want to murder the person who suggested we read it.

Deuteronmy is a re-casting of the Levitical law, it was Christ's catechism. If we followed every law and admonition in it we would all be jailed for stoning our kids and chopping off the hands of women. I know we would all like to say we apply a consistent hermenutic to these texts, but we don't, we pick and choose. So there is in you Mark, as there is in all of us, a wee bit of hypocrasy we need to be forthright about.

It is too easy, too simply to say, "the Bible says..." Hermenutics should be a sensitive practice done in community. That is what McLaren is saying. I think you probably know Brian is showing Spiritual wisdom in his measured response, but in this moment, your flippancy doesn't really serve the Church well and I don't think it captured the person of Christ.

All these loud, mean voices charging around in public like bulls in a China shop. Make claims all you want about being a prophet, but take another glance at Isaiah and the brood of prophets who followed him. They cried out ostensibly more about poverty and injustice than they did homosexuality. And for such a provocative sin, one that gets us all wound up, Jesus spoke of it...um...none.

A jokes a joke, and it's healthy to poke fun at our own posturing. But is this really the standard of debate we expect from our Pastors? And should we be voting to see which Pastors are the most influential? God help his Church.

Words like McLaren's, that are sooo damaging to the body, and to those who are considering Christianity, do call for sharp criticism. The Church in America is surrounding herslef with ear tickling teachers. Whatever one might think of Driscoll's repsonse, He did speak in a manner that was biblically sound. Is greed sin, lust, pride, gluttony, yes to all! Is homosexuality, yes it still is and the Church must have truth driven ministry. When we trade truth for false unity we forfeit the teaching of Christ!

Satire is funny.
Humor is good.
This, my friends was neither.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong.
I also believe all sin is wrong, including lies, adultery, jealousy, gluttony, drunkenness, lust, gossip and the like.
If we're going to rant about gay people, then let's rant about all sin and remember that we need to clean the logs out of our own eyes before we can remove the speck from a brother's eye.

This post was sick.

"Brokeback injunction"
"Male lesbians"
"Homo-evangelicals"
"young horny people"
"this is all just gay"

You just lost any chance of reaching any of the homosexual people searching for Jesus when they read this stuff. Teaching about why homosexuality is wrong is important, but you have to have a relationship with those you are sharing or they won't listen to you.

McLaren clearly teaches this in his writings. He's not calling for leaving them in sin, but to be silent in the way we love the sinner most. Then teach on the sin second.

Jesus clearly taught this. No more rants please. Driscoll may have a large Church, but his heart is clearly not on Jesus.

Tim:

While I do believe that all sin is equally heinous in God’s eyes, I am convinced from Romans chapter 1 and elsewhere, that the snare of homosexuality is especially dangerous to the soul. God, through Paul, seems to differentiate this sin from others. Nowhere does God say that people are “given over” due to their greed. It seems to be the pinnacle of self-worship and the denial of God. And while we are to do what we can, poverty is not a sin in and of itself. Poverty has kept me on my knees and relying on God. It was a sanctifying power used by God.

I can’t tell you why or to what degree, just that it’s discussed with a greater severity in scripture. This may be demonstrated by the fact that it’s so difficult to come free of that lifestyle as where greed can be conquered instantaneously.

The scriptures call us to redeem society one soul at a time. We’re not instructed to set social wrongs to rights. The church is to equip the saints to go out and redeem the world. If the concept is stretched to its extreme for the sake of example, Sunday morning services and the pastor are not the main form of evangelism. Saints gather to be equipped by the Word. Then, they go out and share the gospel to the world. One pastor once commented that if you invite someone to church in order that they will hear the gospel, and you haven’t preached the gospel to them first, you don’t have a proper role of the church. An unbeliever attending the church can be like reading someone else’s mail.

If this model is true, then seeker-ism, emergant-ism and “relevance” are all illogical and ill-founded. It’s like modifying your family reunion, so your new neighbors feel welcome. Most churches preach sermon-ettes for Christian-ettes. Verse by verse, expository preaching is the only way to grow to maturity in Christ and not by having a church and pastor who can make un-repentant sinners feel comfortable at every service or with every message.

I'm not a christian, and as this is what it turns people into, i'm very glad of that. I'm appalled at the way you treat each other.

i have the read the stories of Jesus in the gospels. His ire is always directed at those who think they know the law, and who then try to use the law to remind others how inadequate and worthless they were. Jesus' harshest words were always and only towards those whose words and actions were hurting the widow, the orphan, the homeless, the poor.

Sexuality matters. No doubt about it. But i have a hunch that if the church put all its energy towards loving the widow, the orphan, the homeless and the poor, in the same practical way that Jesus did, then the conversation about sexuality would get itself right in the background. Or at least you'd have a right to start talking about.

Jesus is worth following. The God you speak of here isn't.

Grow up, boys. The world has had enough of this.

Rick...or whoever said Driscoll is fat. As another person already said, Driscoll can adequately defend himself. Having said that, you have NO CLUE of what you speak in commenting on Mark's weight. Mark is in great shape...go to his church, if you doubt. Stop making stupid assumptions...you're grabbing at straws.

As a general comment, about 90% of the rants on Mark's rant are way overboard on the "assumptions-meter". Heck...maybe you could tell me the color of my eyes, what I'm reading and how many times a week I beat my kids by just reading this posting.

>note the sarcasm before calling CPS

Your post is spot on Mark.

There is nothing "nuanced or layered" about homosexuality. There is not "evidence" that we need to wait on science for in order to get our answers on the subject. Homosexuality is a sin. So is murder. So is adultery. So is stealing. So is hate. So by declaring it as such we aren't "hating" anyone or saying we are perfect, we are just calling something for what it is—as made abundantly clear in the totality of the Scriptures.

By Brian copping out and not giving an honest answer to the question the problem is only being exasperated. This "post-modern" generation needs answers and not more ambigious, relativistic gobbledy-gook.

I don't think we "scare" anyone away by following the courage of our convictions either. I think answering truthfully, even bluntly (though lovingly) about issues like homosexuality might be the most effective thing anyway.

I have somehow missed his "fantastic sense of humor" and "deep knowledge and devotion to God's Word".

I can't believe he quoted 1 Peter 3:15, because he's obviously whited-out the "but do this with gentleness and respect” part.

Just another case of some church leader making doctrinal position more important than the way one actually behaves and lives.

Hmmm... I would say that Mark doesn't hate homosexuals. The fact that he said "All this is just gay" was a play on words. What did gay mean originally? Happy or joyous. What did it come to mean? Homosexual. What does it mean for most people today? Stupid, ignorant, irrelevant. Who thinks Mark meant option number three?
Also, sin MUST be pointed out. Don't you think the woman at the well felt shame? Suppose a man you've never met begins telling you all of your sins and chatting with you about them. Would you be ashamed? Would you feel guilty? As far as comments about poverty and injustice go, no one disagrees with you there. Homosexuality is no more deserving of condemnation than say, adultery or stealing. Whenever the "Liar Parade" marches down my street, I'll protest too. Whenever I meet someone who is steeped in alcoholism or drug abuse, I'll tell them what the Bible says: repent! Flee to Jesus Christ! Whenever I meet the poor and destitute, I will help get them food and clothing and will minister to both their physical and spiritual needs. And when I meet a practicing homosexual who dishonors God and His Word, I will...share a coffee? Apologize for people like Al Mohler standing up on Larry King? NO. I will tell them that while they may hate me, and they may hate my message, the only thing that will satisfy them is to run to Christ and repent of their sin against God. In short: Just because Americans don't call out adultery as much as we should doesn't mean we should lower the bar in reference to homosexuality. We should raise the bar for both and declare the exlcusivity and necessity of Christ.

...Other than that I have no strong opinions.

I'm at a loss with this whole thing. This is sad. This is what the leaders of our churches are talking about today. The two perspectives are not that far apart, but in the absence of understanding each other, comes judgement. That's what I hear here. Judgement. But not judgement born from love. no. this is something else. This is judgement born from fear, alienation, hatred and the worst parts of us as people.
God forgive us all.

Regarding Mark's use of sarcasm... I believe that the Scriptures are clear that sarcasm can be a fitting, godly tool when directed at leaders who should know better than to lead the people of God away from His truth. You can't miss this, for example, in Jesus' stinging, sarcastic rebukes of the Pharisees and Paul's same treatment of the Judaizers. I am pretty sure that that Mark would not take this same tact if he was dealing with a person who was stuggling with same sex attraction, but his ranting here is in the context of and directed at fellow Christian leaders, McLaren and friends, who are getting flat out silly/scary with some of this stuff... and so his sarcasm might be necessary and is certainly potentially defensible.

I am most troubled by the quote "This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality but will force to consider new ways of being sexual." Are we really allowed to consider ways of being sexual that are outside of the realm of obedience to God? Has God not been crystal clear in His Word that any and all sexual activity outside of a convental committment of marriage between a man and a woman, are simply sinful? Certainly that includes much more than just homosexuality, but it does include homosexuality as well.

I wish evangelicals were as rabid about racism and poverty as they are over the homosexual issue. But I guess that would take some of us out of our comfort zones.

Should a racist and social darwinist be allowed to pastor a church? be a member of a church? partake of Eucharist?

Because these issues don't get as much attention as the homosexual issue I wonder if what is driving this is homophobia or a serious passion for truth and justice? One wonders...

I just read several posts that barely resemble dialogue between two of my friends (and scores of other polarizing responses to what should be a conversation that edifies the church) and I cannot remember a time that I felt more disgusted. This conversation sounds every bit as dysfunctional and self-centered as the not so friendly dialogue on CNN's crossfire. It's like Mark didn't take the time to really read Brian's words and responded to everything he did not say. It pisses me off for two reasons:

1) We are conversing in a way that only polarizes people and opinions and this is a big mistake. We should be having a thoughtful and passionate midrash about this and many other issues with the humility that says we have something to learn. If you don't have something to learn about this issue you are utterly arrogant and completely un- teachable. Listen.

2) This issue is real for people and it is only wise to have the patience to wait for people to genuinely meet Christ and ask the gay question sincerely. If someone is baiting you into a fight do not take the bait. Instead, talk about Jesus, and extend a hand of love. If you follow this path (and I have many times) you can focus on the gospel instead of morality. Then when the gospel is central, morality will eventually become an issue.

My friend Mark Driscoll has done a disservice to the church with personal attacks and unfair characterizations. If you have been sucked in and taken sides with personalities then you have betrayed the essence of the gospel as well. I spent the last six months working on a book retelling the last week of Christ's life as told by John. Legend tells us that in John's later years as his health was failing he would repeat a singular phrase hundreds of times a day to everyone who would listen, saying "My little children, love one another". It is time to listen to the beloved disciple lest the behavior of Christ followers in the blogosphere become a black eye on Christ's beloved bride.

-Chris Seay