If your basic approach to arguing against marriage equality would work equally well in arguing against abolition....

If your basic approach to arguing against marriage equality would work equally well in arguing against the abolition of slavery, it might be a sign that it would be good to re-think your approach.

Al Mohler is the president of a large Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky. He has written a piece on why he can not support marriage equality. Blogger Fred Clark has taken Mohler's actual argument against marriage equality and simply substituted words like abolition. The result is frightening and should be given attention. As Fred points out 11 paragraphs do not mention any issue. Fred has only replaced a few words in five paragraphs of the sixteen Mohler wrote.

The following is from Fred's blog using Mohler's own words. The only words that have been changed are the underlined words. Again, if your main argument for being against marriage equality would work equally well against the abolition of slavery, the I think it would be wise to re-think the argument.

Why not just join the revolution? This question seems obvious to many people who look at conservative Christians and honestly wonder why we cannot just change our views on slavery, emancipation, and the entire abolitionist constellation of issues.

We are constantly told that we must abandon the clear teachings of the Bible in order to get “on the right side of history.”

It’s not that we don’t understand the argument – we just cannot accept it.

Clearly, many more liberal churches and denominations are not only accepting that argument, they are running away with it. Each of these churches once defined slaves as rightful property and a blessing from God, and every one of them once taught obedience to earthly masters in agreement with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings.

Now, at least some people seem genuinely perplexed that conservative Christians will not just go along with the program to redefine Christian morality, institutions, and doctrine.

We will not because we cannot. Unlike those who embrace liberal theology, we do not see Christianity as a system of beliefs that we can just change as we see fit. We do not see the Bible as a mere collection of ancient religious writings that can be disregarded or reinterpreted to mean something other than what it says.

Instead, we understand the Bible to be what it claims to be, nothing less than the inspired and inerrant Word of God. We understand Christianity to be grounded in specific truths as revealed by Christ and the Apostles and given to us in the Holy Scriptures. We believe that Christianity is defined by what the Bible calls “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

These days, we find ourselves opposed, dismissed and ridiculed for holding to truths that the Christian church has taught for 2,000 years.

The reality is that Christians who define Christianity in terms of historic Christian doctrine and moral teachings do not believe merely that these teachings are true, but that they point to the only way that will produce real and lasting human happiness. We are not merely opposed to abolition because we believe it to be contrary to Scripture; we believe that anything opposed to Scripture cannot lead to human flourishing.

There can be no question that we are living in the midst of a vast revolution in moral values. We see it, sense it and do not deny it. The more liberal churches and denominations can simply accommodate themselves to this moral revolution and move on. But in so doing they are abandoning, not only the clear teachings of the Bible but also the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That Good News promises salvation to anyone who believes in Christ as the crucified and resurrected Lord and who repents of sin. If we misunderstand or misrepresent what sin is, we undercut the work of Christ and our knowledge of the fact that we need a Savior. Furthermore, if we abandon the teachings of the Bible on property, we confuse the world – and ourselves – about repentance.

The Bible is not merely an inspired book of doctrinal truths. It tells a story of God’s act of creation and of the reality of human sin, of the depth of God’s saving love for us in Christ, and the story of where history is headed. The Bible also warns us against any effort to change that story or to tell it wrongly. Yes, it warns us against the sin of teaching what the Bible calls “another gospel” than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The current American landscape includes more liberal churches that are doing their best to join the moral revolution and conservative churches that cannot follow. Simple honesty requires acknowledgment that it is the conservative churches that are teaching what Christianity has taught for two millennia.

We are told that holding to biblical authority and the historic Christian faith will lead to our marginalization.

Perhaps so, but it is the more liberal churches that have been hemorrhaging members by the millions for the last four decades and, even in a secularizing age, it is the most secularized denominations that have suffered the greatest membership losses.

We do understand what is at stake in terms of the human judgment of history, but we are far more concerned about the divine verdict of eternity. We must speak the truth in love and seek to be good neighbors to all, but we cannot abandon the faith just because we are told that we are now on the wrong side of history.

Again only words in five paragraphs were changed. Mohler has simply repackaged arguments used against the abolition of the slavery and applied them in an argument against marriage equality. I suppose this does not automatically mean that he is wrong - but I think it might be wise to give it a second thought before adopting this approach wholesale.

A point on the journey towards Marriage Equality 2 - September, 2014

In August of 2014 the denomination I was a part of released a 90 page position paper titled Pastoring LGBT Persons. I'm not sure why that title was given, because actually only 3 pages were given to actual pastoral thoughts, the rest was an explanation of why people in the LGBT community could not marry, and why pastors could not perform the ceremony.

In early September, of 2014 in a forum belonging to the denomination, a challenge was given to people who were open to marriage equality to say how they could be. The challenge went like this: What is your justification for that affirming position and what is your authority for that affirming position? The thread originally had to do with the frequent assertions in the paper was that one of the only ways towards an openness towards marriage equality was through embracing a form of gnosticism – which it turns out is a pretty bad ancient heresy. I remememer enough from seminary to remember that I didn’t want to be gnostic – so I responded – and that is why there are a couple of references to gnosticism. Also PP stands for the position paper put out by my former denomination.

1. People. In my actual, concrete (non-gnostic) life with actual non-gnostic embodied people who have same-sex attractions. I have not been all that happy with the fruit I have seen as I first lived from the not affirming position, and then as I have pastored from the not affirming position. Below are actual people from my life that I treated and pastored in ways that flowed fairly naturally from my conservative evangelical heritage. These are the people that have caused me to re-think my not affirming position. (I just used a single letter to represent a person’s name).

a) The first person I met who was attracted to people of the same sex was C. I met him in my junior year of college. My 6 housemates and I wanted to save on rent, so we advertised in the college paper and C. answered moved in. He was closely connected to the college chaplain and had a pretty deep interest in theology. To this day I am embarrassed by the tangible disgust my roommates and I showed towards him. I’m embarrassed that I stayed silent as my roommates forced him out of our house, (based on the fear that the girls on campus would think we were also gay – gay by association I guess). I’m embarrassed but I think my behavior flows pretty naturally from the ethos in conservative evangelical circles.

b) My brother-in-law D. When Kristine, my at the time girlfriend, first told me her brother was gay, I pretty much remained silent. The next day I broke loose with a “gay joke,” which was deeply hurtful to her, but flowed very much from the culture in which I was raised. Kristine and I married and a few years later D. met S. and they started dating, and eventually they wanted to have their union blessed/formalized. We were invited. I was hugely conflicted. By going would I be condoning sin? By not going I might risk the relationship that Kristine had with her brother and the relationship I did as well. I decided to go. Before the weekend of the ceremony I shared in the small group that I was leading about how I was going to a place of “deep, deep darkness” and asked for prayers of protection. After the group B. (a member of the group) came out to me – and told me he was one of ‘those people’ living in deep darkness.

c) I walked with B. for two years as he worked to be not-gay, or at least celibate. I watched him give-up and go deep into the “lifestyle.”

d) T. a man who was new to the vineyard. He worked as a big-brother with at-risk youth. He brought them to the Vineyard. He was sexually attracted to men. My job at the time was to take new people out to coffee. He told me about his “orientation” and that he felt God had made him that way. I in essence, told him that he needed to open every room of his house to Jesus, and opening every room would mean gayness would have to go. T. and the at-risk youth never returned to the Vineyard.

e) Back to my brother-in-law D. and his partner S. I watched as S. was with D for better for worse for 8 eight years, but especially over the last 3 as D. died the horrific death from AIDS related diseases. During that time Kristine talked with D. often about Jesus. D. talked about his love for Jesus and how Jesus had saved him from his sins. I thought there was some goodness in the commitment that S and D had made to each other. I thought perhaps D’s death was made more human by having S at his side for the final stages of his journey. I’m not sure the last years of his life would have been better by the church, insistently asking him to open every room of his house and separate from S.

f) The people I have been in conversation with who love Jesus, but are outside the church because they have same-sex attraction, and as near as they can tell have had that attraction all their lives. One of whom lived in a committed monogamous relationship with a man for a number of years. Then he got involved in a conservative evangelical church, who insisted that he break-up the relationship, which he did. He went through a whole bunch of reparative therapy, and eventually married. He gave testimony to being delivered, and on any number of occasions exhorted others still “struggling.” The only problem was the actual attraction never actually left …

g) Now some more actual people. I don’t have actual relationships with them, but I think there is some weight to their testimony and some pastoral implications. I give some weight to the testimony of the people at Exodus and other ex-gay ministries that are no more.

h) I’m troubled by how difficult it appears to be to have same –sex attractions as a teenager and grow up in a conservative evangelical community…

i) I’m troubled by the pastoral practice/evangelical culture that so celebrates conversion to “straightness” that it seems to push many people at best into a sort of denial, that appears to be very difficult to maintain. One of my friends said, “The church is where I really learned to lie, and keep secrets about what was happening with me.”

2. History. The conservative evangelical stream that seems to me to flow from a certain view of what Biblical authority means - is the stream I have swam in all my life. As I look back at history, I’m not sure about all the past fruit and some of the current fruit:
a) Slavery – I’ll simply again recommend Mark Noll’s the Civil War as Theological crisis. The PP is right to point out that the much of the Abolition movement did not come from Chicago style inerrancy culture. Sadly much of the defense of slavery did/does

b) Women in all levels of leadership. To me the PP seems to be in denial about the actual history within the Vineyard of arriving at Women in all levels of leadership. I find the arguments from Scriptural Authority in the women in leadership discussion similar to those that are made in this discussion. The PP seems to want to say we have merely acted on Biblical Authority in opening all levels of leadership, and we are merely acting on Biblical Authority here in being non-affirming.

c) My personal history. 2 and a half years ago I simply grew exhausted from the mental gymnastics I felt I had to do to hold onto a Chicago Statement type Inerrancy – particularly while being an egalitarian and working to move the church I was pastoring in that direction. Chicago type of inerrancy seems to be embedded in the Vineyard USA statement. I was exhausted by trying to answer the more conservative members of our community from a CSI standpoint as we continued to move towards egalitarian leadership. (I’m completely open to the possibility that I am a complete dunderhead hermeneutically, and really CSI does lead to: the abolition of slavery; women in all levels of leadership; woman speaking and prophesying without their heads covered; why we don’t greet each other with a holy kiss etc… I’m sure that someone with even a modicum of hermeneutical skill can effortlessly hold all those things, all I’m saying is that I was exhausted and couldn’t (and can't) do it any more). I realized I was going to have to choose between: holding onto CSI type inerrancy and going back to some form of complementarianism; or holding onto egalitarianism and continuing to move the Vineyard I was pastoring, while deeply re-thinking Biblical inerrancy/authority. I chose the latter and started reading Christian Smith, Pete Enns, Kent Sparks and Carlos Bovell (among others) and started to feel less alone and that maybe I wasn’t out of my mind. I came to the place where I simply couldn’t buy into the CSI ways of thinking. This of course doesn’t soIve the question of how is the Bible authoritative or authority in general. But, one thing moving from CSI style thinking certainly did was cultivate some space for me to re-think my 12 plus years of pastoring (and the fruit) from a welcoming but not affirming position.

Brief pause to reflect a little more on CSI. I sometimes wonder if I am tilting at windmills. Maybe there isn’t a problem with CSI and the Vineyard statement. Maybe if I just read one more defense of CSI I would understand, and see that all the problems I see are actually not that big. They are actually solvable. Some of my Vineyard pastor friends in my area certainly think so. But my impression is that the problems are actually there, maybe they are not as big as I think, but they are there. I read and hear about too many Aha moments to think that this conversation will go away.

Jesus as quoted by the Bible in Matthew 28 seems to actually think He (not original autographs – which at present only exist in some abstract ideal form apart from the actual Bible we have – gnostic? platonic?) has had all authority given to him (which I think would include Faith and practice), and that he will be actually with us until the close of the age. One question that I think would be interesting is: What justification could be given or by what by what authority does the Vineyard statement of faith include this:

We believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors of Holy Scripture so that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. We receive the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments as our final, absolute authority, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

3. Hermeneutical questions/observations in no particular order:

a) I don’t think the reasoning of Acts 15 (or a lot of the Bible for that matter) flows from CSI or Vineyard statement on the Bible type thinking.

b) I do think Biblically speaking there are “greater” themes.

c) I think @Daniel L Heck is asking some good questions about headcovering… (I think the rebuttals will be appeals to larger or greater themes). I would note Paul also makes arguments from creation/nature regarding women having authority over a man - as complementarians are quick to point out.

d) I’m not sure you get just from reading Paul that there is a moral law and a ceremonial law. The Sabbath might be problematic there because it is in the Decalogue.

e) By the logic of the position paper, Heterosexual married intercourse while the wife is menstruating would also appear to be porneia.

f) By the logic of the position paper it seems to me that whatever was considered porneia still needs to be. It is likely (not certain) that this would include, even within marriage: mutual masturbation, oral sex, positions besides the missionary position.

g) (This is more practical/pastoral than hermeneutical) Should some decide that those practices listed above are porneia (as many have and still do), are we obligated to talk with our married friends regarding that conviction to ask if every room of their house is open? My gut is we would agree good Christians could disagree on this, and not try to enforce this on our married friend. But I’m not sure we would use CSI style logic, or the logic of the PP to get to that stance.

h) I’m convinced the PP has demonstrated that Paul could have known of something close to life-long same-sex adult relationships. I’m not so sure it has demonstrated that these type of relationships would have been at the front of his mind, or those of his readers, and the paper seems to concede this.

i) The N.T. Wright quote while punchy is misleading: "“At this point there can be no dispute, no room for divergent opinions: no room, in other words, for someone to say ‘some Christians practice fornication, others think it’s wrong, so we should be tolerant of one another,’..." Again, the third way is making an agnostic argument – saying we don’t know if same-sex acts within a committed covenanted relationship are porneia. The “third way” would be saying sex is powerful and does create a soul tie. It would be asking people to confine sexual expression (again about which we are agnostic – perhaps like we are about oral sex within marriage) to one person for the rest of their life for better or for worse. It is explicitly not “yay" for porneia.

These are some of the justifications that I think about for being open to the possibility that in certain situations the most biblical, loving, spirit-led, communally discerning thing to do, would be in “a third way” manner bless two people of the same sex who desire before God to make a lifelong commitment to each other.

Second interest meeting about forming a Life-Giving community - and a fun list from our first interest meeting

On November 29 @ 10AM @ Nick and Brie's we will be holding our second meeting for those who are interested in being a part of a new community. We held our first meeting on November 8 and I thought it was really great to be with everybody. We looked briefly at Jesus' own mission statement found in John 10:10 - I have come that they might have life and life to the full. In light of Jesus' mission statement I suggested that as we dream/pray/think about a new community we will be really helped by starting a new community only if we sense that we are hearing a life-giving invitation from Jesus. In other words if/when we launch a new community we will be greatly helped if we understand that the opportunity to begin a new community is a way that Jesus could be fulfilling his mission of bringing us fullness of life.

In the spirit of experiencing life to the full, we thought together in smaller groups about what in our past we have found life-giving (I actually pitched fun as one potentially helpful world in determining if something is life-giving) in faith communities we have been a part of. I felt like some very helpful things emerged. Here in no particular order are things that came up in our small groups that have been life-giving in communities we have been a part of.

• Relationships were mentioned over and over again. 
• No Bullshit 
• Singing/worshipping together - especially fun and organic worship - like worshiping on a porch 
• That awesome sense that God is alive 
• Stories of how we have experienced God 
• Meeting Diverse people - people I wouldn't have otherwise 
• Meeting fun people 
• Serving Together 
• Mission Trips 
• Being on a journey with others 
• Being a part of something bigger than ourselves 
• Feeling like people are your family 
• Bonfires, music and beer 
• laughter 
• Raising kids together 
• that kids could participate (no junior Holy Spirit) 
• Services when we didn't have any electrical power 
• playing with Kids 
• Unconditional acceptance 
• Friendship 
• Support 
• Having Fun 
• Unity in Diversity 
• Participating in Puppets 
• Worship and being on the team 
• Learning from others 
• Knowing others and being known 
• Sense of belonging to each other and to God 
• Being accepted 
• Agenda free moments 
• Wine together 
• Working together 
• Spontaneity 
• Small group epiphanies 
• Community Holy Spirit moments 
• Conversations 
• Praying for people 
• Getting Prayer 
• Seeing healing 
• Playing games 
• Eating together 
• Wedding Celebrations 
• Laughter 

I love this list. I feel that a community where even some of the list regularly happened would be pretty life-giving. It strikes me that much of the list we can't program (like try programming: now is the time when we are spontaneous; or, now is the time when we have a meaningful conversation; or now is the time when we laugh). What we might be able to do is live with a sense that these things are signposts of the Kingdom. We might be able to live with a sense that these things are an indication that Jesus is fulfilling his mission of bringing us life. And perhaps together we can cultivate a culture/ethos that is conducive to these things on our list happening more often than not.

I think to cultivate a culture conducive to these great things we are hoping for, it is important to be in touch with why Jesus really is good news. So I thought for this upcoming Sunday - the first Sunday of Advent, it would be worth simply asking this question: Why is Jesus really good news? I will share a little of why I think Jesus is the best news ever, and we will sing and we will break bread and remember Jesus. Join us if you would like, and feel free to invite others who you think might enjoy the gathering.

A point in my journey towards marriage equality

For me the World Vision reversal in March of 2014 was something of a tipping point. I was not all the way there as far as marriage equality, goes as will be clear from what follows, but I was trending (A word that you will see I used frequently in what follows). It was clear to me that whatever force/tribe was at work in people pulling their funding - that I wasn't a part of it. If that was evangelicalism, I wasn't evangelical that anymore. The following were my thoughts the day after World Vision reversed itself. I am revisiting it because as I look back, I do see God at work in moving me along - even as I was only trending ... I believe I wrote this March 26, 2014.

I would not say that I am “for” Gay marriage. In fact for probably at least 95% of my life I have held a traditional view quite strongly. But, at this point I have read enough about this and thought enough about this to feel that the “issue”(what an awful word to use because we are speaking of people for whom Jesus died) is more open than the very vocal opponents of gay marriage would want to admit. [i] Further, for me this “issue” is an “outer” ring issue – not the center because for me Jesus is the center – for me the gospel (good news) is not at stake.[ii] So I am working to be as clear as possible: Jesus being the center is not a bait and switch tactic for me, it is actually the only way I can see to follow Jesus. And this way will only work if Jesus is actually alive and has actually poured out his Spirit.[iii]

The above having been said, for me this “issue” points to the larger issue(s) of Authority – or perhaps from a different angle Revelation. The question of Authority as I understand it is one of what (or I would say better said better who) will guide our actions. The larger tribe, evangelicalism, of which I have long been a part, has answered the question of authority with the answer that the Bible is the absolute final answer.[iv] This answer initially produces deep comfort and confidence and certainty but over the course of history produces deep-seated division, and a good deal of anxiety and fear.[v]

A primary place this fear and anxiety seems to be manifesting at the present moment is around the question of same-sex marriage and the response of the church.

But there is a long history of this fear manifesting, around other “issues” (and it still does at times). What follows are a number of “questions/actions/positions” that can/do produce anxiety and division, but also demonstrate that we don’t (and I would contend no one else does either) just read the Bible and do what the Bible says.

When I was a student at Calvin there was much anxiety within the CRC around the question of women in leadership. I was/am aware of this anxiety and fear, and the reaction that can flow from “allowing” women to teach. I entered the role of lead pastor convinced that women could and should speak, I am ashamed to say I did not really make any movement in this direction until the past year- primarily because of fear of how people would react. This fear of letting women teach, when I am gut-level honest, stems from two places. The first being the fact that letting women teach seems to go against the “clear” teaching of The Bible. The fear of letting women teach is/was compounded by the fact that letting women teach, immediately opens us(me) up to the charge that we are not being true to the Bible, the final authority. Yet, I think that hearing the voice of women has been rather life-giving for our ekklesia and it seems quite evident to me that the Spirit has moved as they have spoken.

If we are being really honest there is no Biblical prohibition against slavery. Taken at face value in fact there is an affirmation of slavery. The Bible says slaves obey your masters. If the Bible is the final authority, and the Bible says is how we live - we should in reality pull our support from IJM and urge them to change their mission from freeing slaves, to urging masters to treat their slaves with kindness, and to urge slaves to serve their masters as unto the Lord.[viii]

If we are being really honest, from a strict The Bible says, perspective almost every divorced and remarried person is guilty of adultery.[ix]

If we were really just following and doing what The Bible says I would guess that almost every male who is older than like 12 or 13 should have by this point in their life gauged out an eye or two (and there may even be a few women who would need to wear a patch at this point in their life).

If we were to just follow what the Bible says then we would of necessity teach and hold to an Ancient Near East Cosmology. We would say the earth is fixed on pillars - it cannot be moved, and that there are domes that cover the earth.[x] As, you may or may not know, the question of origins and cosmology is still a really big deal in some circles.[xi]

If we strictly live by The Bible says …We would confess our disobedience for the way in which we have been welcoming each other and begin greeting each other with “a holy kiss.”[xii]

In my opinion the Bible is pretty clear, that people should only be baptized when they are able to make a confession that Jesus is Lord, and then the ideal is immersion. I throw down a friendly challenge to show me how the Bible says we should baptize babies.[xiii]

From a strict The Bible says perspective I should spend a good deal more time railing against the sin of gluttony.[xiv]

I could go on… head coverings, make-up, jewelry, lending at interest, tithing/giving, view of the “end-times,” pre-destination v. free will etc…[xv]

So what is my point? Am I just throwing the Bible out? Nope. I can’t and won’t, because the Bible was Jesus’ book. No; just because the Bible has been misused I don’t want to throw the Bible out. I am convinced the answer to misuse is not “no” use, but right use.

What would I think is the right use? I think Jesus thought the Bible pointed to him.[xvi] I think Bible points to Jesus as the One who perfectly reveals God.[xvii]I think the Bible points to Jesus as the One who has all authority in Heaven and on Earth.[xviii] I think the Bible points to Jesus as the one who is present to us and leading us through His life-giving Spirit.[xix]

To sum-up: the Bible will without fail point to Jesus as the giver of life; it will point to Jesus as the absolute, final authority.

However, if we set the Bible up as the absolute final authority, this will lead in varying degrees to a cursed anxious existence and put us at enmity with one another… and it can quite literally lead to death.[xx]

The general push-back is: Well if the Bible is not the absolute final authority then won’t we just end up in gross subjectivism –where everybody simply does what is right in their own eyes?

The short answer is: absolutely yes everybody will simply do what is right their own eyes - if Jesus has not beaten death and is not currently present with us through the Holy Spirit.[xxi]

What would keep me from making Jesus simply a projection of my wish-fulfillment, a cipher onto which I project what I want? Well the only thing would be a person, the real actual Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus; the Risen Jesus and the community that he is present to through the Spirit.[xxii] Community and the Holy Spirit – on my own I would certainly go off the rails – we have become so individualistic in reflecting our culture - that we tend to forget that an essential factor in avoiding complete subjectivism is the our community. This is true in following the Spirit and in reading our Bibles. Both were always meant to be communal.

So, to circle back to the question that precipitated my prayer this morning ....

Where am I? To be completely transparent I am leaning towards inclusion and acceptance of people who have entered into covenantal life-long monogamous relationships with another person of the same sex. I’m not all the way there, but to be honest that is how I am trending and probably have been for about eleven months.

Why say “trending” and not just come out and be for inclusion? First, in complete honesty with myself, I suppose I am afraid. I know what being for inclusion could mean for an ekklessia. I know what it could mean for me professionally.[xxiii] I’m afraid of what saying this could mean for the momentum we have going with good things at Southside. I am also afraid that I could be being disloyal to God and simply accommodating sin.[xxiv]

Given this fear, which is altogether real for me; Why trend this way?

First, the movement of the Spirit throughout the Biblical narrative is towards the removal of barriers that cause great hostility and separation.[xxv]

Second, this is a deeply pastoral matter, of how to stand with and be with and love people who are experiencing same-sex attractions. For most of my life I have assumed that the most pastoral thing to do is to “hate the sin and love the sinner.” I can only imagine how this would sound to someone who is attracted to the same sex – I can only imagine how the comments in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (man was there a proliferation of ALL CAPS writing) would sound to a person who has same-sex attractions.[xxvi] I’m beginning to see that who I stand with is every bit as important as what I stand for.

Third, because there is evidence of the Spirit in the lives of people in committed monogamous same-sex relationships and evidence of the Spirit was the reasoning of the council in Jerusalem.[xxvii]

Fourth, I’m a student of history and moved by history, and I know which “side” I would hope I would have had the courage to be on during the slavery debates, the civil rights debates, during the interment of Japanese-Americans in World War 2. I know who I would have liked to have stood with. I have often pictured myself in those situations acting with great courage and conviction, and I have often wished I could be in situation to act with courage. What I realize now is that probably in many of those situations people of faith experienced a bunch of fear and ambivalence… after all the Bible speaks approvingly of slavery, and speaking out could mean loss of employment, friends etc... I know I would have liked to have acted with more courage in my own history in helping women move into speaking and teaching roles within the church. At the present moment a few things are clear. It is undeniable that people who find themselves attracted to those of the same-sex have been treated brutally, and are still at times. I hope if I get “all the way for” or “close enough” I will act with some courage and wisdom. I would like grandchildren of mine (if marriage equality/or some type of recognized covenantal union is how the Spirit is moving) to know that their grandparents acted with some courage – knowing that that “the acting” could cost them – the cost of a small laying down of their lives for those who had been marginalized by the church.[xxviii]

Fifth, this “issue” has been decided by the next generation, and the church stands to lose the next generation – by taking a hard line.[xxix]

Sixth, I am persuaded that this is a disputable matter. That the gospel doesn’t hang on this, and in disputable matters it is better to err on the side of inclusion.[xxx]

Seventh, the complete vitriol and what to me was thinly disguised disgust and borderline hate expressed on the CHRISTIANITY TODAY comment page– leaves me desiring to be as far from that type of religion as possible. I was simply dumbfounded by the withdrawal of funding and the threats.

Those are some of the reasons I am leaning/trending towards acceptance. I feel even closer and more at peace after having written them out.

So this is where I am. Convinced Jesus is the perfect Revelation of God. Convinced that Jesus is the final authority and that he is with us through his Spirit in community. I am trending (I guess I would say quite strongly though not all the way there) towards affirming committed consensual adult same-sex unions. Now I know where I am (and now you know as well if you are reading this).

Grace and Peace,

John




[i] Here in short is my summation of why I see this as less than a settled question from a strictly Biblical sense:

1. The Bible never speaks positively of homosexual activity. Stated in the negative: any reference dealing with homosexual activity is completely negative – the actions are prohibited.

2. However, the people in the Ancient Near East and the Roman Empire had no knowledge of adult consensual monogamous relationships.

3. The Ancient Near East and Roman Empire knew nothing of our conception of same sex attraction or orientation… they only spoke in terms actions.

4. The same-sex actions which they knew were generally speaking either pederasty or male shrine prostitution.

5. So while it is clear that the Bible speaks completely negatively of homosexual activity – it is not clear (and I think this is true no matter how often people say THE BIBLE IS CLEAR! in comment sections) that what is being condemned is monogamous committed adult consensual relations (since these relations did not exist).

For further research in case you are interested - I have not read all these but am familiar with their arguments: A Letter to my Congregation I have read this and found it fairly persuasive – I am probably biased because Ken is a friend; What God has joined together I have met the author and found that he at least made me question my traditional view ; Jesus the Bible and Homosexuality; the go to and strongest case for sticking with the traditional view and maintaining strict prohibition of any homosexual activity The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics my understanding is that this is pretty technical and it is easy to get lost in the weeds of the analysis of Greek words; Homosexuality and the Bible: Two views the two views book are almost always helpful – but also raise the question of pervasive interpretive pluralism… much more in the paper I wrote for SVS…




[ii] In short for me the gospel – is the good news that Jesus perfectly reveals God. It is the good news of Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWqk1o6bDxA ; ..\..\Videos\Any Video Converter\MPEGI\2011-01-30_Boyd_Toppling-the-House-of-Cards_hq_Segment_0_mpeg1video.mpg ; ..\..\Videos\Any Video Converter\MPEGI\2011-01-30_Boyd_Toppling-the-House-of-Cards_hq_Segment_0_mpeg1video_001.mpg




[iii] “Way” is a good word. Way connotes movement. Jesus said he was the way, and that he would send us The Comforter – The Spirit to guide us into all truth.. He did not say “I will send you a Book.” Or to nuance this slightly differently – a centered-set requires a living center. We can be the “People of the book” without a living center. To a certain extent being a people of “The Book” works – but ultimately I think “People of the Book” is an Islamic approach to life not a Jesus following approach to life.


[iv] In fact many institutions within the tribe feel so strongly about this that their statements of Faith begin with the Bible! I think this is completely dangerous. Ultimately I do not think we can ground our faith in a book, but must ground our faith in a person. I engage with the question of absolute final authority extensively in this paper that I wrote for and presented to the Society of Vineyard Scholars.


[v] I have read this Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a culture of Fear in short I found it convincing and brilliant – it is also at points fairly technical. The gist is that the huge trump card of the “The Bible says…” is used as a weapon for one’s own interpretation – and then The Bible(and one’s interpretation) gets conflated with God – so to question The Bible is to question God. This cultivates tremendous anxiety within the evangelical system.


[vi] And again if we conflate The Bible with God – then in going “against” the Bible we are going “against” God.


[vii]Again please see my paper for this extended argument


[viii] A passing familiarity with US history will show that the Bible was very much used in defense of slavery – the scenes of the masters reading the Bible to their(property) slaves in 12 years a slave are devastating (I felt like vomiting, weeping and taking a shower – in that order). The Civil War as Theological Crisis is a very sustained and persuasive demonstration of how the Bible was used to argue for slavery. A cursory reading of Jim Crow history will show that the Bible was very much used to bolster claims of racial inferiority and “separate but equal” laws.


[ix] My Greek prof at seminary pretty convincingly argued – that really even the so-called exception is no exception.


[x] This was not just poetic language it was the science of the day – the earth is literally fixed on pillars – there are diagrams of this.


[xi] People still potentially lose jobs and friends over this question. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/mar/02/bryan-college-draws-takes-stand-creation-has-profe/


[xii] Not trying to be cute… just pointing out that this command is really clear and repeated 4 times in the New Testament. There may be the same number of New Testament reference to homosexuality.


[xiii] This may seem like a quaint relic of the past – but this was a deal breaker in the community I grew up in. And well in centuries before people cared enough to kill over this one.


[xiv] This excerpt is to my mind dead-on and reveals our real issue and hypocrisy when we single out a sin.


[xv] On each issue if the Bible is conflated with the Living God there is tremendous opportunity for anxiety, because in this conflation – the Bible becomes for us an immortality structure. I would say, we are all at some level drawn towards immortality structures because of our death anxiety (Heb 2:14). The real problem is when these immortality structures get threatened – then we begin to engage in worldview defense and this often turns violent. If not outright physically violent – then at a minimum verbally violent (witness the comments – in response to WV’s decision in the comment section of the Christianity Today article). Here is one resource I found incredibly helpful in seeing this The Slavery of Death.


[xvi] John 5:39


[xvii] John 14:9-10


[xviii] Matthew 28:16-20


[xix] John 14:25-27


[xx][xx] Galatians 3:10 in particular, but really to a certain extent the whole letter shows that living by the letter kills I would recommend again Slavery of Death


[xxi] Another less positive reply to this: Could being led by the Spirit be any more subjective than the way we currently pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow? Or, to paraphrase Scot McKnight from Blue Parakeet… We just read the Bible and do what it says… hogwash.


[xxii] John 16:12-15; Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6 among other places


[xxiii] I really appreciated the prayer on Sunday – that I would be afraid – that I would use my voice. I have a friend who used his voice on this matter and he was dismissed from the church he had led for close to twenty years and now works for Home Depot. We never do our best thinking when we are afraid – so I’m praying perfect love will cast out all fear.


[xxiv] Here is a deep reality though – there are risks all around this. And a deeper risk might just be exclusion and missing out on what the Holy Spirit is doing. Biblically speaking in Acts 15 the deeper risk was exclusion and missing what the Holy Spirit was doing.


[xxv] Christ came and preached peace to near and far – he tore down the wall of hostility. Acts 15 is all about the inclusion of a previously excluded group of people.


[xxvi] Loving the Sinner hating the sin – sounds great but is nearly impossible particularly in the case of attempting to love people who have same-sex attractions. Unclean does a brilliant job showing why this is the case. The Christianity Today comment section is a living example of how it is almost impossible.


[xxvii] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/04/03/learning-from-lesbians-jeff-cook/; A friend told about going to a worship gathering comprised of people in the LGBTQ community and having a lesbian pastor pray for him and the Holy Spirit falling on him with power. He wants her to perform his funeral.


[xxviii] When I’m objective I see there could be a cost – possibly my job probably for sure some members of the Vineyard maybe some of you (if you ever get this) – but when I evaluate that as the cost I feel pretty cowardly not standing with people who have been oppressed for a really long time.


[xxix] Anecdotally for both of my teenage daughters this issue is clear – and it is clearly not like the majority of commenters at Christianity Today saw it. All polls indicate the same thing for people under 30 – even 62% of Republicans under thirty. Now of course polls are no way to decide – but it does show that things are “clear” to this generation in a different way.


[xxx] I think Ken Wilson is right in A letter to my Congregation. I agree with his analysis of Romans 14. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was every bit as hot in the moment as this debate is right now. Listen to Ken hear.

Interest meeting for a new community - and piece of writing I have always found pretty thought provoking

I'm ready to gather to worship, pray and dream about what it might be like to start a new life giving community centered on Jesus and welcoming all to the table. We will hold an interest meeting Sunday, November 8 @ 10AM. If you are interested - and I hope you are - message me and I will get you the details.

In the meantime here is a link some thoughts my friend Dave Schmelzer that I have always found very helpful, and that I think would be helpful in keep in mind if/when a new community emerges.

https://notthereligioustypearchives.wordpress.com/stage-4-faith/

The relationship of emergent entities; Or the parasitic nature of Biblicism

Every organization is made up of humans who make its decisions and are responsible for its success or failure, but these institutions tend to have a suprahuman quality. Although created and staffed by humans, decisions are not made so much by people as for them, out of the logic of institutional life itself...– Walter Wink

This is the third post thinking about emergence and its implications as a new community forms. The first two posts are here, and here.

Emergence theory names as real entities institutions, organizations and ideas as among the real entities which emerge from the interaction of humans. These entities have a life of their own and may take up as a goal their own survival. A sure sign that an institution has taken up its own survival as its primary goal is that entity ceases to serve the humans which make up the institution or the humans that are meant to benefit from the institution.

Institutions, ideas and organizations interact with each other in either symbiotic or parasitic ways. Symbiotic relationships benefit two or more entities. In parasitic relationships one is the primary beneficiary at the expense of the other. In either case the entities may or may not benefit humans, or only certain humans at the expense of others.

An idea that to me seems to have taken on a life of its own may be called Biblicism. Christian Smith the Notre Dame sociologist defines Biblicism as "a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability." In very broad strokes, Biblicism emerged from the interactions of humans with a love for the Bible, who were responding to the challenges of modernity that questioned the authority of the Bible. These humans felt that the Bible was under assault and a system of defending the Bible emerged, that today could rightly be labeled Biblicism. There is of course much more to the emergence of Biblicism, but what is of particular interest to me here is the relationship of Biblicism to the branch of Christianity called Evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism is currently the most common expression of Christianity in the US. The British historian David Bebbington has said that Biblicism is one of four hallmarks of evangelicalism. Based on emergent theory, I am positing here that both Biblicism and Evangelicalism have a life of their own, and as real entities they relate to each other. And then I am asking; What is the relationship between the two real entities Biblicism and Evangelicalism?

The answer from my perspective is that Biblicism largely exists in a parasitic relationship to evangelicalism – that is it draws life from evangelicalism at the expense of evangelicalism (and again this has nothing to do with how either Biblicism or evangelicalism relates to humans). For the moment I want to look at the movement I was most recently a part of, and then in later posts I will look at other telling examples that I believe points to a parasitic relationship. 

The movement I was most recently a part of has self-defined as evangelical, and I believe within that movement I have seen the parasitic nature of Biblicism (again it is crucial to get that I am saying that Biblicism based on emergence theory is a real entity with a life of its own – so I am not speaking of humans – I am speaking of this real emergent entity called Biblicism). There is an apocryphal story that I have heard from two different people regarding the Biblicist statement of faith that the movement adopted, that makes me believe that the story is more than apocryphal. The story is that as the statement was being written the founder of the movement was approached, by at least two different people and they said regarding the Biblicist statement, “Why are you including this statement? You don’t even believe it.” To which the founder replied, “I know, but we have to include this statement or we will lose the evangelicals.” I think this is a profoundly illuminating statement, and illustrates how the emergent idea, Biblicism attached itself to a movement. It also illustrates the truth of the chilling statement above from Wink “decisions are not made so much by people as for them, out of the logic of institutional life itself.” I contend that Wink is dead on and this was less about the founder of the movement making a pragmatic decision, and much more about the real entity Biblicism making the decision for the founder. I am naming the relationship between Biblicism and evangelicalism as parasitic, because of the way Biblicism attaches itself to evangelicalism, and then depends on evangelicalism for its survival while damaging its host. Within my former movement from my perspective Biblicism repeatedly damaged the movement in how it operated to ensure its’ (Biblicism’s) survival within the movement.

Within the past decade when the movement moved to open all levels of leadership to women the biggest obstacle to overcome was the opposition of Biblicism. From my perspective Biblicism forced a number of churches within the movement to leave, and forced those who were making the move to open up all levels of leadership to women to frame the opening in Biblicist terms. In other words Biblicism simultaneously damaged the movement while ensuring its own survival within the movement.

I am interested as I dream about becoming a part of a new community in recognizing both the inevitability and power of emergent entities and acting as wisely as possible in light of these realities.