Emergent Thinker Brian McLaren on Homosexuality


Did Brian McLaren actually commit the one folly that he warns against in his post on homosexuality? And, of course, a good Luther quote to clarify the matter

I would wager that some of my readers have heard of the big ruckus Brian McLaren has caused with this post dealing with the question of counseling someone asking a question about homosexuality being a sin, but I would wager that probably more still haven't heard any of it and haven't the foggiest idea who Brian McLaren is. Brian McLaren is one of the most notable voices of the Emergent Church movement. While it is out of the scope of this post to explain the Emergent Church (perhaps its out of anyone's scope to even define it), it is generally considered to be a post-modern reaction to the influence of modernism on Christian theology that stresses authenticity and Christ-likeness ahead of normal protestant virtues such as systematic theology or confessional statements. More can be found on Wikipedia. For a very thorough roundup of the reactions in the blogosphere, see Jollyblogger's excellent summary of what's going on. A tip of the hat also goes to Joe Carter, who first pointed me to this issue.

I have to agree with Jollyblogger first in commending McLaren for finding the "question behind the question." As the Bible says, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1) We should not answer too quickly, nor should we assume that someone's personal questions are synonymous with the political debates that take place. As McLaren himself rightly says, "Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient." It is not enough to simply condemn a sin and move on - as my Pastor once called "lobbing hand grenades in the cultural war". We fire off our predetermined response and whatever ill effects follow must simply be the consequence of someone else's sin. We should, likewise, not be overly anxious to engage in cultural war on a personal level. How often do we lead conversations with secular friends who do not hold marriage in high enough regard with a condemnation of their sexual proclivities? Why single out homosexuals when we are so uncomfortable saying that divorce (frighteningly common amongst "evangelicals") is absolutely morally wrong?

The difficulty lies, however, in first being right. For McLaren to act as though no one in the church is able to take a biblical stance against homosexuality whilst maintaining the dignity and worth of homosexuals is just plain false - and perhaps belies an attempt to say that the only way of caring for homosexuals is to dismiss their behavior. There are plenty of pastors who do care for homosexuals and yet do not compromise the truth of God's word. Speaking the truth in love means that we do not avoid straight forward questions in an effort to love our way out of an uncomfortable conversation.

In addition, everyone seems to be overlooking his example. These were two people who wanted to be married and were asking if their homosexual fathers would be welcome at the wedding. Is there any church, aside from idiotic and easily dismissed hatred-mongers, that would turn away the father of the bride and groom from a wedding because of their sin? Would there be anyone left at the wedding? What about my parents who are divorced, would they not be allowed at my wedding? The answer to the question behind the question is of course your fathers will be welcome at the wedding - just don't ask us to marry them or to call sin virtue.

But my chief problem is with his suggestion of how to deal with this dilemma:

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

What seems to me to be curiously missing from his suggestion is an overarching confidence in the Word of God as the final authority on the matter. He seems to be convinced that the Bible cannot possibly speak in certain terms on this issue - that the Word of God only imparts generic, nebulous, and esoteric truths so much that we must constantly remain in agony, working out our moral dilemmas. If the Bible says something clearly, must our knowledge of that be provisional? From his comments I get the general idea that he thinks true Christianity consists not in the infallible, revealed Word of God, but in some sort of innerworking of the Holy Spirit. Jollyblogger quotes Doug Wilson (please don't wince too hard, Josh ;) ) on this fact, and he says it accurately (though some of his approach in his post is a bit harsh):

"If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts"

But perhaps Luther has said it best. I came across this tonight in reading Bondage of the Will (Luther's scathing rebuke of Erasmus - who himself was very familiar with non-commital, culturally friendly half-doctrine).

"For when we show ourselves disposed to trifle even a little and cease to hold the sacred Scriptures in sufficient reverence, we are soon involved in impieties and overwhelmed with blasphemies."

It seems to me that McLaren's chief criticism of most evangelicals is that they would turn this person away on the first conversation and so tarnish their message that they would not be listened to again. But I have to say that McLaren, as a leading thinker in the Emerging Church, is dangerously close to committing the same sin of which he accuses others. If this were my first interaction with Emergent Christianity, I might very well conclude that they have an extremely low view of scripture and that they might be excising the modernism from Christianity just so they can be fluid enough to morph into what culture demands - so tarnishing the Emergent message that it would not be listened to again.

Posted: Tue - February 14, 2006 at 08:31 AM | | | | | | |

©