Here We Go Again

I blogged just a bit ago about the problem with the 50 most influential christians, all of whom were influential, but which I'm not sure are all Christians, (if historic Trinitarian orthodoxy is the main consideration). I mentioned Brian McLaren, whose "Generous Orthodoxy" has caused quite a stir in the evangelical community. Folks are never quite sure what to think about McLaren because he never seems willing to explicitly say what he believes.

Today, McLaren writes in Chritianity Today's Leadership Journal, in an article entitled No Cowardly Flip-Flop about a couple who asked him his position on homosexuality. He says that he hesitated in answering, for pastoral reasons. Which might be understandable. It is a hot-button issue these days and some seekers of truth might forever be turned away if the first thing they hear from a Christian pastor is words of self-righteous condemnation. Certainly gentleness and respect for all who are created in God's image is a valid stance.

McLaren tosses phrase about, "Radio-Orthodoxy" which he defines as "the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters." In context he is describing the various "sides" of this issue, including the viewpoint of ex-gays who need the help of the church in fully recovering. So there is a pastoral concern, one cannot minister to anyone who has been tossed out of the church at first contact.



But then McLaren makes the kind of statement that keeps him comfortably in the cloud of non-committment. "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." Does this not sound as if McLaren's basis for truth is purely subjective?

McLaren's solution? We should discuss the issue, listen to each other, and in five years make a pronouncement.

"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."

Does he really believe that no one in the entire history of Christianity has thought about this issue before? Does he really believe that he, with a personal guidance from the Holy Spirit, can trump explicit biblical texts and two-thousand years of consistent teaching on sexual morality? Does he really believe the derogatory term "radio-orthodoxy" (probably referring to James Dobson) is not a fair representation of what all Christians believed about this subject up until the last few decades? Does he really believe discussion among various "emergent" leaders who have swallowed post-modern agendas lock, stock and barrel will yield a consensus? Or that such a consensus will be representative of Christ's and the Apostles' teaching?

Contrast this squishiness with the stern words of one who is in the midst of battling the results of it. For most of the last half of the twentieth century, the Episcopal church in the United States and Canada has been sliding further and further away from historical and Biblical standards. Beginning with denial of orthodox theological concepts like the Trinity and the virging birth by a few Episcopal Bishops, the leadership of the denomination has steadily slumped toward Gommorrah, eventually consecrating an openly homosexual bishop. The primate of Central Africa, the Most Rev. Bernard Malango, an Anglican speeking recently at Beeson Divinity school, as reported at virtue online, said of this slide:

"We watched this in the ECUSA. For a time the bishops and the General Convention said, 'Do not discriminate against orientation.' Then after a few years they said, 'it is not natural to ask people to deny acting on their orientation.' The same argument can be found in the Church of England situation (regarding civil unions)."

"The Church of England is now saying 'let same sex couples have their civil unions if they don't have sex.' Before long they will say, 'How can we deny that sexual behavior is a component of these relationships.'

"The great fault line is the one being caused by the bomb [Eugene Robinson's consecration] ECUSA has dropped. The arrogance of pushing this same sex agenda is clear and it is staggering. A relative handful of Western activists are saying, 'we now know better than twenty or thirty centuries of Judeo-Christian teaching and values.'

"Malango said ECUSA's arrogance arose from its unwillingness to be accountable to the community. "They have proven unwilling to recognize the wisdom and the validity of the community of history that has spoken clearly countless times. It now carries over in their unwillingness to see or care about the impact of their actions on the rest of the community. They have wounded the [Anglican] Communion, but it goes beyond that. Hundreds of millions of Bible believing Christians are wounded by their actions. Countless numbers of the unredeemed will stay separated from Jesus because the way of salvation has been obscured."

Those who have observed the battle in the Episcopal Church over this issue quickly understand that the tactic of those who have rejected orthodox theology and the morality of virtually all of Christian history and of Scripture constantly use words like "listening", "patience", "process", "unity", "understanding" to avoid the simple matter of stating what scripture clearly states and believing what Christians have always believed.

McLaren wishes to be kind to certain seekers in his "generously orthodox" church. But Malango is right. There is no kindness apart from truth. Millions will be harmed by the denial of the whole of biblical and orthodox Christianity. Those who mistakenly believe there is no judgment will not seek for mercy.

And evangelicals who go soft on theology eventually go soft on morality. It has happened in the Episcopal church, as well as Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches. It will happen in Evangelicalism. It is oly a matter of time - unless we reclaim orthodoxy. We have a choice, the winds of the current cultural storm or "the wisdom and the validity of the community of history that has spoken clearly countless times."