Homsexual questions to agonize over or not.

Brian McLaren gives a thoughtful repsonse to the "responders" of this orginal post on the Out of Ur blog. Clearly he is talking back mostly to Driscoll whose original response was devastating.

Leadership Blog: Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 4: McLaren's Response

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

I find it curious to Brian that he would agonize over these questions. I am not sure I do. Is there something wrong with me? Let me see if I can take answer these.... (Brian's questions are in purple, my responses in uhhh the other color.

For example, if you are certain without a shadow of doubt that
homosexual behavior is always wrong, where do you draw the line: Do you
let a homosexual person be a member of your church, or an attender?
Yes they can be a member if they are celibate. Just like a heterosexual can.

 Does your exclusion apply only to “practicing” gays, or to celibate
people of gay orientation?
Well clearly a practicing gay is committing the same sin as heterosexual person. Niether would be allowed to remain in good standing at my church.

How many weeks can they attend without being
given an ultimatum?
I don't know if there is a biblical requirement on weeks allowed to stick around. I hope we would use the same sort of biblical reonciliation we would with any other "sinner".

How do you find out if a supposedly nonpracticing
person is hiding their secret behaviors?
I don't know,  how do we find out? They tell us, someone else tells us, what kind of question is that?
How many failures do you allow
before excommunication?
I am pretty sure we don't excommunicate people at a Bible church, but I hope after one failure the process of reconciliation begins. But we all know that there is normally many "failures" before a problem comes to light.

And do you allow heterosexual people who attend
your services to have gay friends?
I hope so, because I have gay friends.

Must they confront those friends in
order to be faithful Christians?
I hope not. Again is there some sort of biblical requirement for confrontation of homosexuals? My friends are clear where me and my wife stand on the issue, and belive it or not they still like us.

What if they don’t?
See above.

What if your
leading elder comes to you to say his daughter has come out as a
lesbian?
Most homosexuals I know of, have deep rooted family issues, either a broken relationship(s), abuse or someother serious issue. In whatever case, it is a family issue, so we would begin there.
 What if your daughter comes out?
See above but look in mirror.
Or conversely, if you are an
“open and affirming” congregation, do you require fidelity or do you
allow promiscuity?
How is this even a question? I just don't see any way around sexual purity no matter the orientation.

How do you enforce that?
Just like we do with every sin, intense monitoring with video, GPS and stakeouts. No seriously, we would ask them how they are doing. How else do you hold each other accountable?

Do you accept people who
think homosexuality is wrong?
This again depends on what we are talking about. Is this a person who is celebate or not?

What if they repeatedly share their
opinions publicly and in so doing scare away gay people whom you seek
to receive?
While we don't want to scare away gay people we don't to create a sense of permissiveness either. Holding up signs in front of the church would be crossing the line but speaking the truth in love is encouraged.

 Are you then open and affirming of homosexuals, but not of
people who consider homosexuality a sin?
I don't understand this question.

If you don’t find at least
some of these questions agonizing, I’m not sure what to say.
None of these questions were all that agonizing. Which is why it is so hard for me to understand Brian's point.

Comments

[CJ]

Hey, I just found your blog (don't really know how) but found it kind of interesting. Especially the vacuum story and, as a Gay Christian, your question and answer about homosexuality in the church.

I'm not really here posting to argue or cause any sort of anything, but just be careful saying that all homosexuals have deep rooted family issues. I myself have always had really what could be looked at as the "perfect family". We don't even have a crazy uncle. I have an amazing close relationship with my parents and sister, and the whole family has attended church together since i was 3.5 weeks old.

I've spent much of my life growing up in the christian world, and am now living somewhere in between both worlds. I would say that, in my personal experience, there are an equal amount of craziness in the family lives of homosexuals as there are in christians, as there is with everyone else. It's as diverse a group as any. The only difference I'd note, is that with Christians everyone just lies and pretends like everything is ok when there is an issue, and there is never any healing (not in my family, but I've noticed in others).

This seems like an issue that interests you so I threw my email in if you wanted to see some of these questions from another point of view. But great blog!

[Chris]

Hey CJ,

I did not say all homosexuals have deeply rooted family issues. I said most do. And I believe most do. I think I can empirically say that, but I was basing that on the homosexuals I know. Those I new in College and those I have known in ministry. And those I just know.

I don't think deeply rooted family issues leads someone to be homosexual alone. I think it is a factor for most and for most it plays a large part.

I agree there is a tremendous amount of pretense in Christian families. Which is of course a sign of unhealth.

[Dan Morehead]

It would be interesting to see the attempt to show that "empirically." While we know that, for example, a second male child to be born is more likely to be a homosexual, I don't think the family question is statistically significant. Even if it may in fact look that way, given the barring that family dynamics have on sexual development, your numbers are likely to fuzzy since homosexuals remains a minority discriminated against in this country, which makes a so-called norm difficult to establish.

If you need questions to agonize over, how about these:

Can you find homosexuality addressed in Scripture? No, I don't need you to send me a list of verses, since the question is whether what those verses discuss - given the structures of first century sociality in the case of the NT - are anywhere close to what we talk about today when we talk about homosexuality. We should do well to remember that we do no honor to the Bible by wringing from its words answers to questions which were not in fact in the minds of those who used these words, and that by doing so we may only obscure the undivided attention with which the biblical authors concentrated upon their own themes. It is a difficult sociological question to ask whether there could have possibly been in the ancient near east anything remotely approximating what we've called homosexuality since the 18th/19th century. The tendency is to read the 21st century American suburb's version of sexuality or marriage back into biblical times/writings on sexuality where you have polygamy, pederasty, concubines and eunuchs, all within the socially assumed realms of normalcy.

[Some good books to read here would be: "Homoeroticism in the Biblical World," "The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology," and Eugene Rogers's "Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God."]

Doesn't the whole schema of homosexuality/heterosexuality a bit biologically simplistic? Even in terms of chromosomal makeup or even on the basis of genitalia, the picture is much more complicated than you or someone like Brian McLaren seem to make it. What have you to say about intersexed individuals? If you assume that everyone running around has either XX or XY, then you have one simple answer to address part of a complex question. What do you do with XXX girls, XYY boys, etc.? I agree that it's alright for a theory to only cover only a majority of situations, but there is also the possibility that the theory becomes so ragged as to need reformulation. I don't really have an answer on this one, but its a question I agonize over.

[Here you could read Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance."]

In terms of exegesis, can/should only passages that talk about men/women or sexual practice dominate your understanding of the mores of human sexuality (and only a particularly reading of those texts at that)? What do passages relating to the sabbath, Job, or Jesus' parables contribute to your thinking about sexuality [homo or hetero]?

I could go on, but my point is simply that I think Brian's questions could be given a little more gravity than you allow, and even if one was to dismiss his questions, there are more difficult ones lurking at the door. It might just be that the assumption that one has this already figured out is arrogant when there are live questions being wrestled with in most Christian circles. Maybe. I'd also recommend reading one of the last chapters of Stephen Fowl's "Egaging Scripture" where he likens the process that the Jews had to go through "looking for the Spirit's work" to see if Gentiles could be a part of the church to what must go on with regard to the place of homosexuality within the church.

[Dan Morehead]

Second question should read 'Isn't' not 'Dosen't'.

[Dan Morehead]

The above redaction should read 'Doesn't' not 'Dosen't'...ahhh...proofreading. Peace.

[Chris Mc]

Dan - I am afraid I don't spend much time agonizing over much of this. I have friends who are gay. I don't agonize over their sexual orientation any more than I agonize over my friends addictions to porn, drugs or facebook. I only care mostly about the condition of their life and most importantly the condition of their soul.

Whether someone is bi or tran does not make much a difference to me. Separation from God is separation from God.

I was answering McClaren's simplistic (IMHO) questions. I don't think his particular questions are that difficult at least to me. I am sure they would be to many Pastors especially those coming from a more fundamentalist perspective.

[Dan Morehead]

It's quire clear that you don't spend much time agonizing over this. You can see that in your dismissive response to McLaren. You're right, of course, that his questions aren't terribly troubling, but your response to them shows an arrogant confidence and clarity on what constitutes separation from God sexually speaking, something from which having gay friends has apparently not saved you. My point was that you might want to agonize a bit more.

[Dan Morehead]

I realized that my comment could be taken as harsh and didn't mean it so. When I use a term like arrogant, I mean it intellectually not personally. A person could act humbly and still be arrogant in how they construct arguments. I'm sure you're a great guy, and I thought I should be clear about that.

Your responses to McLaren demonstrate that you're working from a fairly unambiguous (or decided) notion of what constitutes separation from God. I was trying to argue that there may be room for ambiguity or indecision, which may not be a sign of being liberal or not understanding the Bible, but a sign of being honest.

Many of your answers to McLaren are as simplistic as his questions. For example, when you write, "Well clearly a practicing gay is committing the same sin as heterosexual person." Yes and no. Those that fit into the structures of heteronormativity have at their disposal the possibility of marriage. Given that gay people do not within your church, to maintain your claim, would be to argue that sexual activity between same-sex couples is always wrong. This sort of black and white statement assumes a clarity that I was attempting to question based upon, among other things, our study of sexuality being a relatively new endeavor and the ambiguity of the church globally on these issues. Maybe its easy from within the walls of WBC, maybe it shouldn't be.

[Chris Mc]

I wonder if in academic circles (which seems to be where you have spent a lot of time recently) you are allowed to call someones thoughts arrogant but not the person themselves? Isn't that somewhat a convenient separation? "I find your ideas stupid, but you are swell". That does not sound right to me.

You are correct. I have a decided upon idea of what constitutes separation from God. Fortunately for everyone I am not the sole arbitrator of righteousness. However my ideas are not just my own but rather are dependent on my understanding of scripture which also does not come from just my own understanding but leans on those far smarter than me in certain areas such as sexuality and gender issues.

I see you are trying to argue that my notions of sexuality should not be so black and white. Well they are. Do I think sex outside of marriage is a sin? Yes. Should same sex marriages be allowed? Now that is a questions to agonize over.

Brian's questions could be given more gravity on my part. But that was not my intent. I think Brian asks good questions. But not everyone in the church is as clueless as he informs. I think Brian has many ambiguities in his Theology that should be looked at more closely.

I don't find Brian's questions agonizing because they deal with the way in which we should treat others. I say error on the side of love.

I do agonize over what causes homosexuality. Are people born with natural same sex attraction? Is it something influenced by upbringing? Is it the result of the Fall? Is it a curse?

I have opinions on those questions. But they are mine. Whatever my opinion I will do my best to love because that is what Jesus commanded.

[I did some editing 12:27pm]

[Dan Morehead]

I guess that was my way of saying: look, your responses sound a particular way, but I can't really speak to whether the tenor or substance of your comments was intended (or just is a function of my slightly sensitive theological ears). Your statement that "Should same sex marriages be allowed? Now that is a questions to agonize over" is helpful (at least to my ears), because it is an admission that the set of questions which surround sexuality, gender, identity, and ecclesiology, questions which remain open and perplexing for most of Protestant Christianity, are not easy ones. Your original post seemed to dismiss McLaren [someone whom I myself often find theologically naive] from the comfort of a set of positions which require no wrestling, no agony. My point was simply to say that McLaren's might not be the most difficult questions, but that doesn't mean that we're not saddled with an equally difficult set of related question. If you had all the answers to questions that the global church is struggling to answer, that would seem (to me at least) a bit arrogant. It was nice, in the end, to hear some tentativity.