Andy Stanley, Al Mohler and Scot McKnight

We have apparently come to the place where progressive Christians are open to roundly criticize conservatives who simply speak their mind and portray them as judgmental while being increasingly unwilling to speak against others who pass judgment with extreme prejudice.  

Al Mohler raised a question as one part of a discussion about the megachurch phenomena.  The heart of Mohler’s post was that a generation or two ago, it was suggested in “liberal” circles that Christianity needed to change in order to reach people.  But in a short time, those churches jettisoned essential elements of the faith.  While Mohler praised – yes praised – the conservative bent of many  megachurches and megachurch leaders, he said that the temptation would be strong to water down essential truths for the sake of outreach. 

In this context, he referred to a message by Andy Stanley - "When Gracie met Truthy".  Stanley used a sermon  illustration where two men, both having abandoned heterosexual marriage for a same-sex relationship were told they were disqualified from a service role on a “host team” because one was still married to his wife, not yet divorced.  Stanley did directly speak against adultery – since one of the men was still married, and tied that to disqualification from serving in that position.  But Stanley said not a word about the morality of the same-sex relationship itself and whether that might also disqualify someone from the same role.  His silence on the obvious hot-button issue implied to at least some that had both men been divorced while having this same-sex relationship, they could have stayed in their role.  

So adultery was a disqualification while an illicit gay relationship was seemingly not.     (Read more...)

Stanley’s message left a lot of questions – and legitimate questions in an age where gay marriage is constantly in the news, mainline denominations ordain gay clerics and many in the broad evangelical tent argue that the historical church position against same-sex activity is a 20 century long misreading of scripture.  I would imagine a lot of folks in Stanley’s church were waiting for clarification, not just Al Mohler. 

But at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog today a good deal of wrath  was directed at Al Mohler for raising the question.  McKnight was clear in his header that Stanley was "Right and Good" and that he was on Stanley’s side.  He quoted two passages from the New Testament where Jesus clashed with the Pharisees.  The Pharisees were concerned with being “right” while Jesus was concerned with being good.  Clearly, for McKnight, Stanley is associated with Jesus here and Mohler with the Pharisees.

“I want to know if Andy Stanley shows people to Jesus or out the door.”Apparently, the primary motive of being "accepting" of the sinner is the "good" thing and Mohler's criticism of the lack of clear moral teaching is the “problem” to be addressed.  

Understand that Mohler was not arguing for “showing sinners out the door” as McKnight’s post implied. Welcoming sinners and failing to be clear about what it means to be a sinner are two very different things.  Nor was Mohler criticizing Stanley for being welcoming of sinners, even gays.  He was calmly criticizing Stanley for being unclear - for speaking in a way that seemed to imply that homosexuality might not be a barrier to service in a particular influential megachurch.  Mohler’s question was in essence “At what point does Truthie meet Gracie?”

There is first of all a simple consistency issue to be addressed.  Is it unwelcoming to those in attendance who might have been living in adultery that Stanley called adultery a sin?  If not, why then would simply being clear about the morality of a same-sex relationship have been in and of itself unwelcoming?  Would it be unwelcoming to thieves if a pastor says stealing is wrong?  Is it unwelcoming to men who are addicted to porn to say that porn is bad?  How does Mohler’s question about clarity have anything to do with being welcoming to sinners? True, Stanley’s point may have been that we should not jump all over sin issues with individuals the first moment they step through the door, but that is a very different thing from a sermon which seems to imply that having two men in a gay relationship serving in some capacity in a church is acceptable.

To be clear, Dr. McKnight has stated in the past that he personally believes homosexuality is not the biblical norm, and comments after the post clarify that Stanley’s church does have statement supporting traditional marriage.  I suspect Mohler is aware of Stanley’s official position, so he asks:  “What does Andy Stanley now believe about homosexuality and the church’s witness? We must pray that he will clarify the issues so graphically raised in his message, and that he will do so in a way the unambiguously affirms the Bible’s clear teachings — and that he will do so precisely because he loves sinners enough to tell them the truth.” 

McKnight clearly wanted to link Mohler to the Pharisees.  But is one a Pharisee for simply holding to longstanding moral standards?  Is calling a moral transgression wrong tantamount to being the diametric opposite of "accepting" and "gracious"?    

Was not the sin of the Pharisees self-righteousness as opposed to simply taking a position on the morality of a behavior?  Was not the sin of the Pharisees washing the outside of the cup while the inside of the cup was filthy and rotten?  Was not the sin of the Pharisees adding to the law and misunderstanding the heart of it?  Was not the sin of the Pharisees placing huge burdens on the backs of people while doing nothing to help them lift that burden?    Was not t he sin of the Pharisees attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the devil.  Which of these Pharisaical sins is Scot McKnight accusing Al Mohler of?  

Where in scripture does merely stating the truth about moral error become equated with Pharisaical judgmentalism?  Was Jesus unloving or non-accepting for calling hypocrites hypocrites?  Was Jesus a Pharisee for telling the woman at the well the truth that she had many husbands and was living with someone who was not her husband?  Was telling the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" unloving or unaccepting?  Was this a Pharisaical stance on the part of Jesus?  Did his directness make he feel less welcome?  

Why then would the suggestion that Andy Stanley simply be clear that two men in a sexual relationship are not eligible to serve in an official church duty, which it seems to me is all Mohler was asking Stanley to clarify, be so horrible and unwelcoming?  If Stanley had simply said to the men “go and sin no more” or “come to church, but don’t expect to serve until some things are ironed out”, would that be unwelcoming and judgmental?  Did Al Mohler suggest Stanley needed to do anything more than be clear?

The thing is, Andy Stanley could have stopped this in its tracks with about two sentences of clarification.  That’s a point no one seems to want to make.

There are plenty of things for an erstwhile New Testament scholar and trainer of young theologians like Scot McKnight to get upset about.  How about a brief word of disagreement with Dan Savage's rant against the Bible, complete with personal references to sex acts with his partner, profane language about the Bible itself and a vebal assault on Christian high school students who walked out on him as "pansy-assed".  Might that deserve a passing comment from a New Testament scholar?  

How about Tony Jones’ own classless and disrespectful post about Charles Colson just hours after Colson’s death with a link to Frank Schaeffer's foul mouthed assault on Colson’s life and character?  Is that not a bit uncivil from a blogger on occasion referenced on a site called “Jesus Creed”?  How about an occasional criticism of Jones’ obsession with being provocative, potty-mouthed and his stridently vocal promotion of normalizing gay relationships within the Christian community?

Dr. McKnight, has a long history with some emergent leaders who are quite supportive of the gay agenda, Tony Jones being one vocal example and while McKnight references Jones blog on occasion in his weekly meanderings, there is never a word of admonition to tone down his rhetoric or rethink his positions. It seems to me that the only thing that ever seems to warrant a rebuke from Dr. McKnight is Al Mohler or John Piper being conservative.     

Understand Al Mohler would not be my favorite guy to defend a conservative viewpoint.  Nor am I a fan of Piper - I am a committed Arminian who finds his version of Calvinism fairly distasteful.  I’m not a proponent of the Young Restless Reformed movement.  I actually am probably too “ecumenical” in my theology for a lot of conservative evangelicals.  

I just find it ironic and aggravating that those who simply and honestly defend a conservative viewpoint are regularly and almost exclusively critiqued and criticized while those whose main purpose seems to be to provoke, push the envelope, insult, tear down and push hot buttons from the progressive side never seem to warrant so much as a mild admonishment.  

Don’t tell me it is the tone of Mohler’s critique of Andy Stanley that arouses McKnight’s ire when TJ slams those he disagrees with using vulgar language and transparent contempt on a regular basis.   In addition to dancing on Colson’s grave, Jones recently celebrated his role in restoring the word “vagina” to a book from a Christian publisher with the headline “Go Team Vajayjay”.   Classy.  He referred to John Piper and by extension anyone who is not an egalitarian “misogynists”, haters of women.  His defense of gay unions and full inclusion of gays into the church is a regular feature of his blog.

I’m sure Scot McKnight has read some of TJs more colorful posts.  He has never bothered to chastise Tony Jones for his rants, profanity and broadside accusations the way Mohler, Piper and other conservatives get called out.   Dr. McKnight portrays himself as a civil moderator of open discussions on deep topics, one who welcomes "conversation" on the issues of the day.   But in reality conservatives on occasion get chastised or, more often, are simply dismissed as irrelevant.   

Sad.  I once thought McKnight was one guy who might at least be fair. 

Nope.  Just another partisan.