I received an email from a pastor today. He is part of a group that I will be speaking
to in a couple of weeks. The email
contained a video clip of Rob Bell and a British theologian named Andrew
Wilson. The pastor in the email
admonishes the group to watch the video before my coming to speak to the group.
In the video clip, Andrew Wilson has a very clear position
that same-sex sexual behavior is sinful.
He is trying to understand Rob Bell’s position. It is clear that Wilson and Bell differ in
their perspectives. What comes across in
the video, however, is that Wilson is articulate and clear – and Bell is murky
and evasive. And the end result is
further polarity, further misunderstanding, further perpetuation of
distinguishing true believers from heretics by using gay marriage as a litmus
test for orthodoxy.
Wilson pushes for a very black and white position. Either gay sex is sinful or God says it is
righteous. Either the Bible is true or
we just put the Scriptures aside for the sake of cultural progress. Wilson is trying to nail down whether Bell’s
exegesis is different or if his hermeneutics is different. He is asking if Bell thinks that Jesus and
Paul were not referring to our contemporary reality of same-sex oriented adults
desiring to be in a marriage relationship (and instead referring to historical
and cultural experiences of same-sex behavior in the context of pederasty and
idolatry) or if Bell thinks that Jesus did prohibit all same-sex sexual
activity – but got it wrong because he too was just a product of his time and
place. These are important and incisive
questions. And Bell seems to avoid
responding.
Perhaps, Bell just didn’t want to go down the tired path of
argumentation – and as might be gleaned from his closing remarks – wants to
just acknowledge the differences and still see one another as brothers in
Christ. Maybe he resists engaging the
questions because he doesn’t believe this should be the litmus test for
orthodoxy. I’m guessing there.
If one reads through some of the comments, however, Bell’s
responses (or perceived lack of response) elicit very strong, certain,
proclamations of Bell’s heretical position.
One commenter said, “Rob Bell is apostate concerning
the faith doesn't even understand the basics of Jesus teachings about
holiness...I fear for anyone who might follow him..beware!”
While Rob Bell may have well been inviting
Andrew Wilson to experience generous spaciousness with him in his closing
comments, the robustness of this posture seems lost on Wilson and the viewers
of the video. What is of ultimate
importance is ascertaining what Bell’s position is and why he holds it.
Indeed, Scripture does implore us to, “Always be prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that
you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a
clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good
behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (I Peter 3: 15, 16)
Surely there is more to be said from the
Scriptures about why generous spaciousness, or the invitation to experience
Christian unity in the midst of differing perspectives, is a faithful response
in today’s discussions about Christian discipleship for sexual minority sisters
and brothers.
So, if I had been Rob Bell in that particular
interview / debate these are some of the things I would have said in response
to Andrew Wilson:
Wilson speaks of an arc of Scripture from Genesis
to Revelation and suggests that this arc is one man, one woman, in marriage,
for life. I would ask whether this is
really the primary arc one ought to consider when contemplating matters of
sexual ethics for sexual minorities.
When I consider the large story of Scripture, from Genesis to
Revelation, I see a beautiful and perfect creation where there is justice and
peace for all in the beginning …. and in the end I see this creation restored
to a place of justice and peace for all.
This trajectory and focus on justice, or to put it another way, shalom,
is the consistent expression of God’s heart for all that he has made. So when we consider matters of sexual ethics,
a primary question for me – more primary than a question of complementary
gender – is the question of removing barriers for people to flourish.
As I have said in a previous blog series, your
theological starting point makes a big difference in your articulation of a
theology or ethics of sexuality. If your
starting point is creation order you will land in a different place than if
your starting point is the essential character of God as Trinitarian –
relational. God is relational – and we
are created in his image. What
implications does this have for sexual minority persons? If it was not good for man to be alone in the
garden, the perfect creation prior to sin, how does this fit with the call to
refrain from intimate relationship for an entire group of people?
If your theology and ethics is deeply informed by
the Incarnational strategy of God – the stripping of privilege and status in
order to identify with those who are alienated, different, and marginalized in
order to bring restoration and wholeness, you may end up in a different place
than if your emphasis is on a prescriptive normativity. One must grapple with the question of whether
the complementary male and female in the creation narrative is descriptive or
prescriptive. And, people will differ in
how they answer that question.
Rob Bell makes reference to Neil Plantinga’s
definition of sin in the interview.
Plantinga says that sin is “culpable breaking of shalom”. This is an understanding of sin that may be
different from the typical definition of “missing the mark”. “Missing the mark” seems to suggest that you
will lose something if you sin. “Culpable
breaking of shalom” carries a sense of loss and grief. Another way of looking at this may be to
consider why a Christian would try to refrain from sin. The life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ has swallowed up sin and God’s victory over sin
and death is sure and complete. As human beings, this means that the way
to be reconciled to God has been accomplished. Human beings are
confronted with a very simple but profound opportunity – we can either receive
this good news and believe it to be true – or we can reject it. Salvation
is completely and totally held within God. Our sin cannot nullify what
Jesus Christ has already accomplished. We aren’t reconciled to God
because we do well at sinning less. We are reconciled to God because
Jesus Christ has made it possible. We seek to live lives free from sin
because first, we are so grateful for what Christ has accomplished on our
behalf and second, because we do not want anything to impede or distract from
our communion with God through the presence of the Holy Spirit. That
means, that as children of God, we do not need to be so fearful of whether or
not we interpret Scripture perfectly. We rest in the glorious good news
of what Christ has accomplished. And in gratitude for this, we seek to
live lives that are open to and experiencing this amazing gift of grace.
To somehow suggest that sin has the power to defeat what Christ has already
accomplished makes the enemy dance a jig – because then God’s children are
living in fear rather than living in the joy and gratitude of Christ’s
victory. The point is not to decipher what is sin and what isn’t – the
point is to open our lives to the reality of who we are in Christ and live in
grateful response – trusting that the Holy Spirit is more than able to continue
to lead us into all truth and into a deeper and deeper communion with God.
If I had been in Rob Bell’s seat for this interview, I
would have talked about the difference between our Christian lives being
energized by fear or energized by love.
Now don’t misunderstand me, I think that love still has a healthy sense
of reverence and awe for a God we can never fully apprehend. But such love is not afraid that God isn’t
really good or isn’t really loving or doesn’t really want to receive us as
reconciled children because of what Christ has accomplished. When we are energized by love, we are free to
live in joyful gratitude with the desire that nothing would impede our communion
with God. But when we are energized by
fear, we don’t want to take any risks, we don’t want to make any mistakes, we
strive and drive and inevitably try to earn God’s love.
If I’d been in Rob Bell’s place, I would have talked
about my conviction that we are called to worship and serve Jesus as Lord – not
the Bible. Don’t misunderstand me, I am
deeply grateful for the gift of the Scriptures because they are God’s special
revelation of himself to us. But I
encounter so many Christians who seem to make the Bible its own idol. They seem to worship the Bible more than
Jesus. When I read the Scriptures, Jesus
makes clear that the Holy Spirit is going to keep on revealing Jesus to
us. When I read the Scriptures, I’m
called to put my hope in the Living Word – Jesus. That means that I can recognize that my
interpretation – and everyone else’s for that matter – will always be
incomplete, imperfect. I will never know
with 100% certainty how to interpret the Bible.
What I can know with 100% certainty is that God created the world, loves
the world, and will reconcile and restore the world – and that I can
participate in this reconciliation. So,
when I look at texts of Scripture, it is completely appropriate to ask if my
interpretation is Christ-like. Is my
interpretation consistent with what I see in the Scriptures of what Jesus did
and taught.
If I’d been in Rob Bell’s chair, I would have talked
about the model of incarnation in contrast with the model of proclamation. With proclamation, we interpret and decide
what is sinful, tell people that, and call them to repent of anything in their
lives that is sinful. This action will
make them right with God. With the
incarnation, we seek to walk as closely with Jesus, through the enlivening of
the Holy Spirit, as possible. As we
embody his presence, we do life with the people around us. We become living models of the way of
Jesus. We work for shalom – we help
people to flourish, we help people to experience justice. We embody forgiveness and the fruits of the
Spirit. We are alert for the
opportunities to explain why we live the way we do – and so we share the gifts
of Christ.
If I’d been in Rob Bell’s place, I would have talked
about the spiritually formational value of living in the tensions of our
differing approaches, understandings and interpretations of Scripture. I would have shared about the power of being
enlarged in humility as I anticipate encountering God already at work in those
with whom I disagree – and being open to learning and being blessed by God’s
presence in the other. I would have
talked about the power of living out the radical hospitality that Jesus
demonstrated.
I would have talked about Jesus’ words about good trees
bearing good fruit – and bad trees bearing bad fruit. And I would have shared about the reality of
experiencing good fruit in the lives of those who have different theological
perspectives than I do.
I would have talked about the reality that much of our
Christian teaching on sexuality has been socialized by patterns of fear,
anxiety, disgust, power and control. I
would have used examples from church history where pagan dualisms were baptized
into Christian theology, where shame and guilt became sanctified motivations
for punitive, control based teaching. I
would have done some reflecting on the many different sexual mores in the narratives
of Scripture.
And I could go on ….
My point is not to argue for Rob Bell’s position. My point is that there are robust theological
reflections that help us to understand why we can come to such different
perspectives on matters such as our theology and ethics of sexuality. My point is to try to demonstrate that
generous spaciousness is not some weak, compromise that is simply motivated by
keeping up with culture and trying to make God relevant in a gay-positive
context. Rather, generous spaciousness
costs us our pride, it costs us the luxury of arrogant certainty. Generous spaciousness costs us our security
in our exegesis, our hermeneutics, our interpretations. (especially when such
exegesis and hermeneutics result in prohibitions for others that do not
personally affect ourselves) Generous
spaciousness forces us to find our security in the wild, untamable revealing of
Jesus Christ to us through the Holy Spirit, through the Scriptures, through
tradition (including contemporary tradition), through the academic disciplines,
and through our experiences. And the
truth is that this revelation is not in our control – it is in God’s
control. This demands our humility, our
openness, our fearlessness, our willing to risk following – even when it seems
God is doing a new thing.
God has put us in a body made up of different parts with
different functions. We need one
another. We cannot say to another part, “I
have no need of you”. Rather, we need
our diversity, our different emphases in this journey of discernment. But it means that instead of trying to nail
each other down into black and white proclamations of truth, we extend space to
one another – space to quiet ourselves and hear what our consciences are
telling us. And sometimes that is really
hard to articulate and explain.
Sometimes what our conscience, activated by the Holy Spirit, is saying
doesn’t hold up well in a debate with someone who is so very, very
certain. But can we still make room for
one another in the Body? After all,
whose call is it concerning who is in the Body and who isn’t? Jesus said let the wheat and the weeds grow
together so that we don’t unwittingly uproot the wheat while trying to pull the
weeds. The Harvester will know the
difference at the right time. In the
meantime, on such sensitive and complex matters, let us be gracious and kind to
one another – listening for where God may be at work .... for who knows,
perhaps God will show up and show us something of himself in the other.
Wendy - This question of one-ness is an important one. It's one we need to wrestle with in terms of our various theological differences, and it's one that I struggle with.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to be one in Christ, part of this body, with someone whose position I vehemently reject? I can call it ideology or idolatry, but can I call that person or those people brothers and sisters?
In a church community I was part of in Ottawa, we regularly sang a song during worship that carried the lines "we need each other more than we need to agree."
I can intellectually assent to the importance of those words, but my actions often betray my true beliefs.
The questions of who is in and who is out always rise to the surface. The way in which we understand God's revelation differs. And somehow we are called to do more than just tolerate one another.
I suppose in the end, you're right. It's the God revealed in Jesus by the power of God's Spirit who determines the body's members. And that Spirit, if the scriptures are any indication, she moves in mysterious ways.
Andrew - I wrestle as well. For example, one of the core values of generous spaciousness is justice .... well what happens when people disagree on what justice is? Does generous spaciousness invite injustice to the table? I certainly hope not - but that may depend on how you define injustice. And what happens when our disagreements aren't just theoretical ideas - but they intimately affect my sense of personhood - can we still exercise generous spaciousness when it costs one person deeply - and the other seems oblivious to that cost? These are deep and important questions that cannot be pushed aside. What I do know is that when we wrestle with these questions together, God promises to be present with us, helping us. When we do wrestle with these things together, we are exercising faith that God will help us - and that will bear good fruit. But, we are not promised that the journey will be free of pain nor that it will be easy. But is our unity worth it? Well, when I consider that it was one of the final things that Jesus prayed so passionately for - and that Jesus saw it as a key to the world seeing the revelation of his reconciling gift to the world .... then I have to believe that our unity is hugely significant to God. Dare I say even more than being "right"....?
ReplyDeleteI sent a link to this blog and video to our youth pastor. This is a perfect segway to a conversation we had a few weeks ago about the church losing this generation. If this goes well, I hope to bring it up to the other church leaders.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Duane
Hope it is helpful Duane. Keep me posted.
ReplyDeleteLove this Wendy. Would you mind if I reposed this on http://thetension.info with a bit about you and a link back to your blog?
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Stephen
no problem Stephen
ReplyDeleteI am so grateful that you are doing the hard work of continuing on in generous spaciousness Wendy. I love to read your writings and am learning as I go. Grace, grace. unity and pure relationships above 'being right.' Our Jesus is more - far more than I can ask for or imagine! He will continue to surprise me all my days. And I will continue to ask...
ReplyDeleteWendy, much of what you would have said had you been in Bell's chair was said by Bell elsewhere, as you may know. Perhaps this was an off day for an interview, and perhaps being in this position (of affirming God's love as independent of our sexual orientation) is new to Bell. YOU certainly did a great job of showing and expositing on the expansive grace of God. THANKS!
ReplyDeleteAndrew defended his points better, but the position is weak both because it assums a conherent view of the Bible and because it assums God said it all.
ReplyDeleteRob starts out well, and I largely agree with his concept of God as expansive, supremely loving etc. When I was growing up as a Christian in a respectable evangelical church I pretty much agreed with Andrew's position.
ReplyDeleteI think Rob is a great storyteller and creative communicator and a decent artist, but not a convincing theologian. As Andrew points out he takes a radical position and his theology doesn't provide adequate grounding. I thought the same reading "Love Wins".
However, in recent years I have gotten to know more gay christians and have revisited my views and discovered this article which turned the whole thing upside down for me A theology of welcome
Basically it switches the burden of proof to the restrictive side ie that the conservative side must prove that a loving, just, radically-inclusive God would exclude committed monogamous same-sex couples from a sexual relationship.
Despite the way conservative leaders speak as though any form of homosexuality behaviour is obviously sinful, the sum total of directly relevant biblical material is actually very small and uncertain.
Many of the verses can be attributed to addressing temple prostitution, homosexual rape for dominance, pedophilia etc. Nowhere does the bible clearly address mutually respectful homosexual relations.
No one is arguing _against_ that God created humanity male and female, OR that a man and woman are required to procreate, OR that humanity is mostly heterosexual. Adam and Eve started out living naked in the garden, but no one takes that as prescriptive for our lifestyle today.
For many it comes down to solely Romans 1. (I'm uncertain on this one)
I believe Grimsrud's theology supports Rob's concept of God, and provides a much greater challenge to Andrew's position than Rob does here.
Rob Bell should have asked Andrew "How are you so sure that our loving God considers mutual, committed, monogamous, loving gay relationships sinful, that the Church should cause all this strife for so many people ?"