Driscoll is hilarious!
Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle has entered the blogosphere and its hilarious!
Check out his comments to Brian McLaren here. I'd be interested in thougths on the homosexuality issue from my amigos!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts on life and ministry
About Me
- Brian
- Journeying with as many as I can to find out the best life. I believe this means following God in the way of Jesus.
Other blogs to share
Books I'm Reading
- Christian Tradition vols. 1-3
- History of Christian Thought vols. 1-2
- "Torture and Eucharist" by William T. Cavanaugh
Labels
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(91)
-
▼
January
(9)
- Driscoll is hilarious!Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill...
- Ruth and Boaz: 2Here is another installment of the...
- E2Well, here she is... the new van! We are very ex...
- One of my favorites...Just weeding out some of my ...
- Ruth and Boaz- pt. 1I'm sure I've written bits and...
- Name that Van!Now's your chance for a little input...
- Pathetic!!!How pathetic have I become? How middle ...
- Friends...After being home and seeing some friends...
- Now I know why...I'm in San Diego right now. Neve...
-
▼
January
(9)
10 comments:
Again, I fear that the point of the Gospel is missed when we reduce its message and our purpose to debating such issues as homosexuality. The Gospel is not and never was meant to be a rigid formula telling us WHAT to think about specific issues; but rather a story exemplifying for us HOW to think. Israel was given specific "whats" only to develop an entire system filled with loopholes a-plenty, which conveniently allowed them to honor the "whats" all the while missing their purpose and point.
Jesus, however, taught that the purpose had been missed in the keeping of the "whats". Sabbaths are for us, not us for Sabbaths. Heaven is a place where there is no divorcees but only healed relationships. And the greatest thing - yay, the very purpose of the "whats" themselves - is to love God completely, to seek that which is pleasing to him, that which being the good of those around us and not the gratification of our own desires. This was not a new or different "what" or specific, but a general and overriding "how" for Christian thinking, a thought, an idea, an aspiration that would lead Paul to comment that our ultimate aim as followers of Christ was to "be transformed by the renewing of our minds", a process by which we "let the attitude that was in Christ Jesus" be in us.
How then does this lead us in the quest for truth? It is truth. There is nothing lesser or greater because it is the truest means of living. It is the hope of a grief-stricken world. It is our good news in the midst of poverty and pain. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sadly, both sides (the whole concept of "sides" probably representing the heart of the specific what that each is debating) have chosen to alienate one another over a matter that has become more important than their fellow persons. Homosexuals and Christians alike are in danger of making a weapon of their identities. And though the sarcasm in the right reverend Driscol's article (this statement is funny because I used sarcasm to point out his sarcasm - laugh, damn it!) is so thick as to blur much of his opinion, I suspect and fear that he too thinks too highly of his status so as to miss the truth of his beloved Gospel.
I do not believe the people like McLaren are being wishy-washy or even condoning the issue toward one judgment or another. I simply believe that he and others of us are urging caution in making a judgment lest we forget that the ultimate judgment is the one that sets us right with God and each other. He and we are not so concerned about an issue so morally vague right now that both sides seem perplexed, but instead seek to approach our brothers and sisters in Christ open-handed and open-armed as Christ, for Christ, with Christ. Thus our issue as followers of Christ becomes not how to change them into us but how to change our loathing of them (and ourselves perhaps?) into love.
Adendum: I apologize that this comment has taken me almost 3 days to post, but at the heart of it is an important issue for me and I wanted to take the time to think about it and those involved carefully and considerately.
So. I'll be upfront, I haven't really landed on the whole issue.
In response to Kipper: if it's about how we think, then how do we think about homosexuality?
Again, I want to be careful here, Josh, but I think both sides have been inconsiderate to a large degree. The gentleman who was descibed as saying he wanted anal sex with a lot of guys because he liked multiple orgasms, at least in my estimation, was thinking only of his own self-gratification. That obviously conflicts with a Gospel that teaches a self-sacrifice that recognizes that the universe is not all about "us" but "Us". At the same time, those who spend the majority of their time asserting their stance on the issue tend to lose sight of the persons involved and thus lose the purpose of the Christian faith, which Paul described as a mission of reconciliation.
Condemnation, a tactic of both positions, does nothing to shape a united and whole society. As Vincent Donovan continues to remind us long after his death, people do not need us to point out their sins. They know them full well. And they certainly do not need us to define them, explain them, and dole out a judgment upon them. What they need is for us to embrace them for God to God in such a way that God in his judgment may set them right and thus redeem one more piece of the picture for social justice.
How are we to think about homosexuality? I doubt that you and I need to think about it at all since we are undoubtedly satisfied heterosexuals. How we think about homosexuals seems to be the debate that McLaren - and most likely you and I - are more concerned with at this point.
I like what you have to say, Kipper. And I like you, in the most straight way.
I want to agree that people when they are arguing their stances they are usually not thinking of the people themselves, but I can only speak for myself and realize that when I do speak on the subject faces and names come to mind. Faces and names that I care about.
I'm interested in what Donovan has to say about pointing out sins. I have some friends who just had to confront another friend who was heading down the wrong path (not a homosexual path, but a heterosexual path with his girlfriend). Their words to him were just labeling what he didn't want to label in his own life. And he was so glad they said something. This may not always happen. He could have been way mad at them, pissed off that they would have the audacity to come to him about something that is wrong with his life. But they came to him in love and pointed out what they felt like he was doing to hurt his life and the lives of the people around him. And through that he is making a turn for the better. But would that have happened if they hadn't pointed it out?
A couple things from this story that are really important to note. One, they already had a good relationship with the guy. Two, they came to him in love. Three, they carefully considered what they said and how they would approach him, through prayer and conversations with a pastor. Four, they didn't threaten a lack of relationship, saying that they wouldn't be his friends if he didn't stop his behavior.
I think if most issues were handled with this approach, it might be different. Of course, some people will still say, "F--- You" to the person that approaches them, but the person who approaches them has done what they feel the Creator has led them to do.
The tricky part of that, of course, Josh (do you feel as if we're hogging poor ol' Brian's blog space yet?) is that we very often do what we "feel" the Creator is leading us to do and not always or necessarily what he wants us to do. How many honest Crusaders did what they "felt" God wanted them to do, justifying the slaughter of thousands, even fellow "Christians" by stamping it with the seal of God? A common illustration, I understand, but still one that did not happen once followed by a learned lesson; but how many Crusades were there? Then there were the Salem witch trials, men and women convinced that they were rooting out the evil in their communities that God would have wanted destroyed.
The struggle that falls to each generation is the relevancy of the Faith, the Gospel, the Scriptures, etc. I remember confronting one girl in our church on her pre-marital relationship with a guy and watching a most unhealthy relationship break up two days later. God's will? Perhaps. Certainly, my credibility came from the relationship I had with her. But later, I had so many couples from outside the congregation approaching me to officiate at the wedding ceremony, couples who were living together and fully engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage. Again, were they "wrong"? Perhaps. But to have focused on this would have missed and even destroyed the good that was done in establishing a relationship with these people, many of whom had such a visible value to their lives and contributed so visibly this value to others.
More often than not it is the very presence of Love that reveals sin long before our eager mouths do and in a much more easily accepted manner than our mouths present. How many people knew of their sins and confessed as much the instant they came into Jesus' presence? He never needed to say a thing. His life exposed it all and revealed the better lifestyle, because ultimately his concern was for others. Granted, he did open his mouth from time to time, and boy howdy! But notice that such open comments were toward those who already thought so highly of themselves and justified their audacity by the classic "It's okay, I'm with God" reasoning.
As much as it is our place to be Christ, our zeal too often leads us into confronting others not for their own good, but for the sake of being right or of establishing our idea of right. James warns us that the tongue is a two-edged sword, and I worry that too many Christians are simply caught up in the blood lust of hacking and slashing with it. A counselor once told me (though the words are mine) that we can either choose to be right about something or we can choose to be right with someone. The latter will more often than not lead us around to the former. The credibility of anyone's beliefs then - whether about homosexuality or anything else - is not in the words spoken (or, in the case mentioned, in the words shouted) but in the life lived for all to see.
Adendum: The need to point out sins should never be one taken eagerly.
Yes, I love hogging Brian's blog space. But what can you do?
A couple more questions in response, Kipper, since it seems that you're willing to engage in further dialogue (which I like).
1. While I am with you in recognizing that many people have done obvious evil (or maybe I shouldn't label it as such, because who am I to point it out?), is there ever any point when we can be sure about what we are to do and how we are to live? Are there any boundaries, and if there are, how do we discover them and address them?
2. Yes, our love should be loud, but I am a little wary to say that often Jesus didn't need to say anything. Maybe it might be better to say that the way he lived his life caused others to reflect on their lives, and then the things that he said gave them guidance on the future of how to live their lives. In reading Guder's "Missional Church" he talks about how the purpose of the Church is to first live the life of Christ and then second to label with words what they are living for the world to understand. So words are most definitely needed but always in the context of relationship and love.
3. I wonder if the opposite of the attitude that says, "It's okay, I'm with God" is "It's okay, whatever goes." What do you think?
4. I loved what you had to say, but my favorite paragraph was your last, pointing out the difference between loving something or someone. My question about that paragraph ties with your first paragraph, when do we know that we are confronting someone for their own good?
I hope that Brian gets in on this sometime.
You guys are great.
Josh
Late to my own party... again! But what do you do?
To throw my proverbial hat into the ring could be a bit dangerous here, but why not...
1. I agree with everyone that love wins and that love is good and Jesus is love. I also agree that our focus on others is 90% critical and non-loving and therefore corrupt and selfish (speaking from personal experience - if you feel guilty about this find your blog, er, altar - jk). I also agree that we don't spend near enough time in love: Love of God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and love for neighbor.
2. My last statement leads me to this... as we look at history of people - Christian and otherwise - we have always found people to alienate, hate, think less of, etc. But the question that echoes through time is still, "whose your neighbor?" (not to be confused with "whose your daddy"? but I digress) If we are to embrace the very heart of God, which I think I hear Kipper steering us towards, then we are to embrace his love for all the neighbors. Tough yes. Right yes.
3. Now for the juicy part... but I do agree that our responsibility is not to keeping those around us happy or in love with us, but to Christ. If we are to live our lives keeping other happy, then we will live hell on earth to be sure. This is not to confuse truth telling with non-relational opinion sharing. I do think that there is a better life to be lived by all of us. I do believe that we are all on that road, which means others are further along in some areas and other are further behind in areas. I do believe that its in the best interest of people I care about (and love for that matter) that I find ways to be a truth teller in their life - sooner rather than later. But we cannot enter this role without first realizing that we ourselves have quite a way to go too. So it is within the spirit of co-pilgrims that we help one another by telling the truth, to each other, in love. To tie all this back to another blog post - we can't forget where we came from (see Rahab, the mother of Boaz).
I believe that we spend entirely too much of our lives trying to affirmed and liked... or recovering from the truth which others have spoken to our fragile egos. Why can't we just commit to each other and to truth? (I know the answers I think, so don't feel a strong need to answer this question, but it's a good one, no?)
Finally I'll add this...
if all sin really does separate us from God, then why do we care so much about the "kind" of sin? Let's start a new recovery group - sinners anonymous. I'll start this week. "Hello, my name is Brian and I'm a sinner."
My fiancee tells me that I talk too much. Probably true. What she really means is that I philosophize too much for her preferences. "People want concrete answers," she tells me," and you just talk to much." Again, probably true. As with most philosophers (why don't we use that terminology in a modern sense anymore? I may be no Socrates or Descartes, but hey, I use plenty of parentheses and elipses...)...as with most philosophers, I'm a dreamer. And like most dreamers I prefer to dream big. Why not go for the gusto? Why not imagine a world free from sin, from pain, from "self-absorbtion"? Where we do love our God wholly and our neighbor as ourselves?
The problem I see is a result of the patterns of the past: we have so attacked our brothers/sisters who disagree with us that 1) we have alienated them from us and most likely both them and us from God (ok, that really sounds like two issues); and 2) we have perhaps in our zeal blurred the real issues for consideration.
Unfortunately, our lust for concrete answers so often leads us to grasp answers without wrestling over whether or not we've even asked the right question. The Bible too was a collection of writings shaped by a variety of factors from culture to theology. Why don't we fuss as much about women's naked heads? or talking during the service? Don't these issues - shouldn't these issues - drive us insane in pursuit of rightness? They are biblical after all, that is, in the Bible. But we dismiss them lightly saying that they were simply a product of that present culture and not to be taken too seriously for our now enlightened minds.
Please don't misunderstand me here, gents. I'm not taking a stand one way or another. I'm simply trying not to trample the daisies in the process of finding that stand worth taking. I want to ask all the questions so that when I finally take a stand on the question I might do so in a manner worthy of One who died for me to do so.
Again, not choosing a side, which makes me a nice target for both sides willing and eager to take shots. But I dream of a world where shots need not be taken. Admittedly, most of us do not know how to present things in love or a loving manner. Our zeal blinds our love and so we come across in a manner we did not intend (as I fear that I have done already), thereby driving others either to flee from us or to attack us making us more defensive and more likely to attack in turn.
I was never an admirer of Chic Shaver's methods of evangelism, but I do think he had a point when he demonstrated that before we can present anything to anyone there are several long stages of relationship building that need to take place first. So please understand that if I err toward caution on the issue of homosexuality it is only because the issue itself is not as important to me as those who have defined themselves, in one way or another (pro- or anti-) by the issue itself.
But now I'm "talking" too much again and Dee Dee is already looking over my shoulder with a smirk on her face. So no more "talking" or dreaming or anything else. Have your way, guys.
Sorry, last line of my last statement was to read: "Have your way with me, guys." A more sarcastic and humorously vulnerable statement than what appeared. Guess I talked to much and forgot to listen to what I was saying. :-)
Sad...I just wrote a long response and the computer freaked out...
To boil it down...
The heart of the issue is always relationship.
We want a good relationship with the Creator.
We want good relationships with others.
We want others to have a good relationship with the Creator.
We are broken and still working out that good relationship, so that sometimes we exclude people because of our bias and sin.
We don't let our brokenness stop us from being like our Creator and bringing restoration to the world.
What that looks like is not often black and white.
We do have direction in it: love.
The issue is bigger than homosexuality: BUT homosexuality is a big issue to others around us, and if we are to properly value them, it might be important to have some type of approach.
Post a Comment