Thank you for the clarification, and I respect you not getting into issues on Rob specifically, as I was looking at your church’s stance and whether or not, as amy suggested, perhaps the ’stance’ on ‘homosexuality’ had changed.

Amy,

Taking Daryle’s comment in context and – trusting that it is self-representative, which I have no reason to doubt – I would expect that Daryle has been examining the good and the bad (in terms of theology), and – per the statement “at this point as far as Christian attitude, I’m very disappointed with the discerners” – I would interpret that as an observation of orthopraxy on the part of the ODM’s.

Other than the tongue-in-cheek closing, I don’t see any attempted defense or opposition to the emerging church. Personally, as both -doxy and -praxy go, I have as many – if not more – concerns about the ‘reformed’ church as I do about the ‘emerging’ church.

Reading what we’ve written as blanket acceptance of the emerging church and all its permutations would require ignoring a lot of what we’ve written…

You don’t know what my goals are, and I really don’t think I could help you understand them no matter how I tried to explain them.

Amy, its been clear what you’re doing here for quite some time. You’re here to interpret as uncharitably as possible anything written or said by a significant emergent figure. Has their yet been a single topic you’ve commented on where you’ve chosen to accept an explanation/interpretation that puts the subject of the post well within historical Christianity? Because so far, I can’t think of one, even when you’ve got someone like Nathan who works with the author, and has read the entire work you’re criticizing discussing the issue with you ad nauseum.

How about looking at the Emerging Women sight and discussing some of the problems with “emerging”? Or do you not see problems there?

Chris,
“Even in summing up Bell’s comments, Witherington did not contradict anything I’ve discussed to this point.”

????

“Evidence for “Bell thinks an active homosexual lifestyle can (or might be able to) honor God and His instructions in scripture”:
- Ben Witherington’s commentary on Bell’s brief statement on why he would not address the topic of homosexuality.”

The “brief statement” is the problem under discussion. It’s a brief statement that Witherington had the response I’ve already given, above to. A significant “brief statement.”

I give up.

I have enjoyed reading through the various blogs. I started researching this “Emergent Church” thing a few months ago hoping to understand what all the confab was all about. I have been on both this blog as well as the “discernment” blogs, and I have to say at this point as far as Christian attitude, I’m very disappointed with the discerners. So now, oh hi there Ken, I’ll be labeled part of the man-centered semi-pelagian postmodernism serpentine movement of Satan.

It doesn’t really matter to me that much whether you like or dislike Bell. It just seems you are on some sort of crusade here to convince us of something here.

I respect BW3, and I actually think he’s one of the most fair and accurate NT scholars out there. He does not even take the stance you are taking. He actually recommends Bell’s books and says good things about him for the most part. One area of disagreement or unclarity is not enough to condemn someone as an apostate.

I should have written: Strangely, you’ve still not addressed why it is such a pressing need for Rob to fully explain his underlying beliefs on homosexuality.

Sorry for the poor wording, previously. Thank you, though, for giving an answer to the intent.

The next question would then be, though, which is more important – Rob defining his “ethics” (which I put in quotes because the suggestion that the answer to this question defines his ethics) or an effective witness.

As for Witherington, I went through the entire thread – including the unanswered questions from the last half – to see if Witherington addressed the points. Here again, it is important to distinguish between one person’s translation of what was said (which was written in far more words than Bell is reported to have used in answering this question) and what was actually said.

Joe – you attend Mars Hill. Are you aware of any change in its handling of homosexuality or homosexual sin? Have you heard Rob (or anyone at MH) speak on the topic, or suggest that a monogomous homosexual relationship is a sin-free way of life?

Even in summing up Bell’s comments, Witherington did not contradict anything I’ve discussed to this point. Only BW’s personal analysis and interpretation of Bell’s stance is in contradiction, and even there because of the way he has defined ‘homosexuality’.

So, let’s look at the evidence at hand:

Evidence for “Bell thinks an active homosexual lifestyle can (or might be able to) honor God and His instructions in scripture”:
- Ben Witherington’s commentary on Bell’s brief statement on why he would not address the topic of homosexuality.

Evidence for “Bell does not support an active homosexual lifestyle, but chooses to stay mum on the subject in public because of the confusion around the terminology and treatment by the church and to avoid causing little ones to stumble”
- Mars Hill’s treatment of homosexuality and homosexual sin
- Bell’s frequent recommendation of William Webb’s book (even on Bell’s website), whose only ‘ground-breaking’ claim is the decoupling homosexuality from the issues of slavery and subjugation of women in the Bible.
- Bell’s consistent action on not commenting in depth on the subject of “homosexuality” in public
- Bell’s actual words and actions, as described by BW (including the isolation of ‘homosexual orientation’ within the discussion), which also completely avoided approval of ‘commitment/monogamy’ as a qualifier for homosexual behavior
- Consistency with effective witnessing techniques specifically geared toward homosexuals.

So, if I have to weigh the evidence in hand, it is not that difficult a thing to do, particularly since I do have first-hand dealings with helping people afflicted by this temptation.

If nothing else, I think the only thing you’ve proven in this discussion is that Bell is right and that that this topic isn’t something that can or should be answered in public Q&A session.

If Bell were someone who was influencing me through his teaching, I would do whatever I could to look into this further.

On the other hand, I suppose, if our goal is only to criticize your advice is not the same.

It seems your view does not line up with view of the writer of Hebrews when he refers to Christ as our older brother, and as one tempted as we are yet without sin.