This is why I defend McLaren, even though in many ways I’m uncomfortable with him: His attitude towards homosexuals is far more Christ-like than the church has been in the past or the watchdoggies are now.
Here’s a helpful hint for those of you out there convinced that Spurgeon walked on water, and that everyone outside of your blogroll is an apostate, semi-pelagian, purpose-driven emergent. If you want to share the gospel with those who desperately need it, referring to them as “Sodomite”, “lavender”, and “limp wristed” is only going to drive them (and probably you) further from Christ.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm and is filed under Ingrid, ODM Writers, Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
15 Comments(+Add)
Tim – I repost my comment from another article because it is relevant here.
Many if not most homosexuals were born with that bondage. If you’ve never wept over their plight, if you’ve never attended a funeral of one who commited suicide, if you’ve never put on gloves and protective gear in order to visit one in the last stages of AIDS, if you’ve never been personally involved with a homosexual who has become a Christian and hates himself because he still struggles, then you have no business in a antiseptic argument over how we catagorize their sin.
The more I listen to the argument, the more I see the senslessness if indeed Bell and others still see sin somewhere in it. And I feel very bristled when I listen to the compassionless chatter that seems more interested in pinning down a theology than in feeling empathy for those who suffer.
I have ministered to homosexuals, and visited the dying ones with AIDS, and even commiserated with believers who had a struggle with that type of stronghold. For decades and more we have used the gay community as a self satifying punching bag without the sacrificial love that might have reached them. I might not agree with the homosexual verses homosexuality debate, but why is it we are never open to God breaking us all to the plight of millions?
That is how I view it.
I think you are generalizing and perhaps creating a sort of straw man. Most Christians today aren’t doing this–at least not where I live in So. California. If there are some who are backwards in this regard then we need to educate them. But the reason so many of us have problems with McLaren and others in the “emergent conversation” is they leave out an important component–the atonement of Christ on the cross. That is truly the starting point (and I emphasize starting point) to freeing anybody form anything including homosexuality. The church, sadly, does not understand for the most part how to free these people even after they receive Christ. That is the church’s task–the one before them-and yes you are right in that those who are still homophobic need deliverance too.
With Respect Diane, I’ve never been to California but I am not sure that is the place we should use as a barometer for the rest of the country. I can tell you people I know who are doing these things. Cali tends to be a bit more “progressive” then the rest of the country?
I wonder if people who talk about McLaren’s view of the atonement have actually read any of books. He pretty clearly spells it out. I truly don’t understand.
Honestly when I was reading his books, I was getting ready for him to say something really bad because of all the negative stuff I’ve heard. As I kept on reading, I was thinking I was missing something because I wasn’t being offended. There were some parts where I read something and though that here is something people will take out of context, but there was no deal-breaker in any of his books for me.
Utter and complete garbage.
You can start with Dan Kimball answering his critics that he’s been vague. Note the bullet point with the words “substitutionary atonement” next to it.
Here’s a statement of belief from the church McLaren started, “He [Jesus] lived a sinless life, was crucified for the sins of us all…”, if you want it directly from McLaren, here’s a summary of his work “The Story We Find Ourselves In”.
Erwin McManus’ church points at this page as their statement of faith which says, “in His [Jesus'] substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin”.
Did I miss anyone the watchdawggies love to crucify?
Diane,
I would also agree with Joe. Cali is it’s own little world compared to much of the US. I still hear plenty of Christians treat homosexuals like modern-day lepers quite frequently. If I were a gay person, I would assume I was not welcome at most churches in my area. In fact, I don’t really have to assume, I know from actual friends telling me.
Ingrid’s words “lavender, limp-wristed,” etc were applied to the “apostate rebels” who “formally approved of pastors in Sodomite relationships.
These “approving” people are not all homosexuals.
The focus of her article is the apostacy of such an approving. Her words were directed towards people who are part of that approving.
You said, “If you want to share the gospel with those who desperately need it, referring to them as “Sodomiteâ€, “lavenderâ€, and “limp wristed†is only going to drive them (and probably you) further from Christ.” I suggest that her using such names for people who disapprove of having homosexuals in postitions of Christian leadership is mild compared to certain passages in the Bible.
If you’re concerned about the gospel reaching homosexuals, you should be concerned about such men being approved as pastors. The gospel they will be teaching is either one that says that “Continuing in sin is okay;” or, “we’re all sinners, mine is no greater than yours, let’s enjoy ourselves;” certainly, “the Son of God is not powerful enough to help me overcome my sin. I must sin.”
People who lend approval to such men (or women) being pastors should also give approval for people in adulterous relationships, people actively committing murder, and so forth, to be pastors. Unless they want to be accused of discrimination.
Hebrews 10:26 says “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left . . . ”
The “Sodomite relationships” was in reference to the homosexual pastors. What do you want her to say? If the pastor was someone in an adulterous relationship, could she say that? If he was a child molester, couldn’t we say that? If he was greedy, could she say that? Why do people who are pastors and gay get a special pass?
I Cor 5: 11 says to not even eat with someone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, etc. It doesn’t say don’t eat with him but please, oh please, let him be pastor and be oh so careful how you describe his sin.
Tim, what about the uber-Emergent AND emerging AND lead PDL pastor of the ecumenical church of Deceit, Rob Bell?
Amy,
Does it really matter? Would you suggest that if a church used racist language applied to only certain groups of people that they’d be effective at all in spreading the gospel to traditional targets of that racist langauge? Of course not. A preacher that says “that group are n*****” isn’t going to be listened to by this black group even though he never applied that language to this particular group of people. And that’s exactly what Ingrid has done here. Do you think that it matters to homosexuals that she’s applying language used to demean them to non-homosexuals, or homosexual Christians? Do you think that Ingrid stands a snowballs chance in hell of ever communicating anything about Jesus Christ to a homosexual that has seen her writing this? If you’d bother reading what I wrote you’d see I didn’t take issue with what she wrote, only how she communicated it.
We get it Amy, when it comes to saying all the right things stridently about homosexual Christians you’re right there up front. You must be very proud of yourself. So much so you might want to try praying that you’re so happy that God didn’t make like all those “limp wristed” and “lavender” emergents and their defenders.
Todd,
FYI, we sing hymns!
Tim,
That’s 100% correct. If I hear someone use that kind of tone and language about any person, I almost automatically assume that person is stone-cold ignorant and isn’t worth arguing with. Some may say that’s bowing to political correctness or something of the sort, but I would say it’s just reality.
Also, for those that talk about Paul treating certain people harshly. I think we have to look at the context. The church in Corinth was in it’s infancy, and Paul was trying to keep people out who would destroy it from the inside. Unless someone is part of one of the congregations that the issue of homosexual pastors is directly causing problems, it is hardly a direct correlation. Even if a person does have to deal with problems, resorting to name-calling is certainly never going to make anything better.
I find it funny and sad that the blog that constantly harp on “cussing pastors” have no problem with using language that is considered much more vulgar and hateful in the general population. Honestly, most people will overlook someone saying a** or s***, but when you refer to homosexuals as “limp-wristed” that is interpreted by a lot of people as downright hateful.
“Does it really matter?” you asked, about your misinterpretation of the article.
It matters because the main part of her article is right on, and your negative misinterpretation of it ignores that and causes anyone who hasn’t read the article to comment on something that is false. Your misinterpretation also gives the impression that you don’t see that her main point is a worthy one.
Personally I see no point in using words like “limp-wristed” and “lavender,” just as I see no point in a lot of other colorful words that are used by various individuals. You have a point that words like “limp-wristed” and “lavender” are like “racist” words and could keep someone from listening to what she’s saying. Because Ingrid regularly uses words like “limp-wristed” to describe weak male leaders in the church, leaders who have issues that are not connected with homosexuality, I haven’t taken these words as used by her as having a “homosexual” connotation. But I can see how others could and probably would.
As for the word “Sodomite,” we know what book that comes from. Besides the OT reference there is Jude 3-14 and perhaps one other.
“We get it Amy, when it comes to saying all the right things stridently about homosexual Christians you’re right there up front.” Yet another unfair and untrue representation. Again, I would emphasize that Ingrid WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS but the leaders who were wanting to condone have homosexuals as pastors.
What have I said that is strident towards homosexuals? Mostly I’ve shared scriptures which if studied show that I actually care more about homosexuals than Christians who are doing much to encourage homosexuals continuing in their sin. Scripture is “strident” towards homosexuality and all sexual immorality. God has no need to downplay the awfulness of sin; He never has. That’s why he sent His Son to die, because our sin – all of it – sexual, greed, and so on – is something that cannot be in his presence.
We don’t need to change the definition of sin. God sees it just as it is. His Son died because of it.
“We get it Amy, when it comes to saying all the right things stridently about homosexual Christians you’re right there up front.” Try me, Tim. Start writing articles defending Christian pastors who speak at churches run by people flaunting their adultery, or who talk gently and persuasively about the church’s duty to accept men into churches who just can’t help the fact that they have to sleep with everyone else’s wife in the church. Defend some pastor who speaks of such men as “not wanting to cause trouble,” and “men who’ve tried everything but just can’t help themselves.” Start talking about such men and you’ll see how I’ll be just as up front.
ALL sexual immorality is wrong. No exceptions.
Amy,
Does it really matter? Would you suggest that if a church used racist language applied to only certain groups of people that they’d be effective at all in spreading the gospel to traditional targets of that racist langauge? Of course not. A preacher that says “that group are n*****†isn’t going to be listened to by this black group even though he never applied that language to this particular group of people. And that’s exactly what Ingrid has done here. Do you think that it matters to homosexuals that she’s applying language used to demean them to non-homosexuals, or homosexual Christians? Do you think that Ingrid stands a snowballs chance in hell of ever communicating anything about Jesus Christ to a homosexual that has seen her writing this? If you’d bother reading what I wrote you’d see I didn’t take issue with what she wrote, only how she communicated it.
We get it Amy, when it comes to saying all the right things stridently about homosexual Christians you’re right there up front. You must be very proud of yourself. So much so you might want to try praying that you’re so happy that God didn’t make like all those “limp wristed†and “lavender†emergents and their defenders.
Great post……
Amy,
I’ve searched my Bible everywhere for “Sodomite”, I can’t seem to find it anywhere. Probably because that word has become less of a description and more of an insult. Maybe you should use a slightly more modern translation. And as a bonus you’ll find yourself using a translation that has copies that are closest to the autographs.
Again with the assumptions Amy. So far your only posting that comes close to showing McLaren defending homosexual pastors is that he spoke at a church with a homosexual pastor.
I don’t want to hop on the train since these issues are super tired to me, BUT…
Amy,
It does seem a bit disengenuous, or at least naive, to quibble over the use of the phrase “limp wristed”. To apply that term to other “approving leaders” is undoubtedly code in the vernacular of our day for being “effeminate” which conjures classic stereotypes about gay males…THUS lumping them with the particular group that is the favorite whipping boy (boys?) of certain christian communities…or at the very least intimating a “back door” insult. Gimme a break.
Also, as far as Ingrid’s shrieking…(who I’ve seen described on certain comment threads as “the banshee”)…
It just couldn’t possibly be that certain leaders actually believe they are taking a principled, thought out stand that happens to be different from hers.
The people I know who hold the ELCA position don’t do so out of an “attacking” spirit or heart. They genuinely have come to their conclusions–however wrong they may be…
This means they should be given some respect as thinking human beings…not referred to as “lavender” etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, blah, blah, blah…
It’s that terminology that is designed to denigrate the person instead of a reasoned grappling with their position…
It makes disagreement easier to navigate through for the attack dogs, but it doesn’t help the very people who they criticize to come to a different understanding.
Once again…if you walk up to someone, kick them in the shins and then act hurt/persecuted/righteously angry that they told you you’re a jerk for kicking them, then the problem is you…and that’s exactly what Ingrid does.