The Sin of Sodom

Most people assume they know what the sin of Sodom was. I mean, don’t we still call that same sin “sodomy”? God killed them because they were homosexuals, right? I thought so to, until I stumbled across this verse in Ezekiel:

“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Interesting, isn’t it? I’m not saying that homosexuality is right, but it is interesting that the sins that God names are sins that most Christians (at least around me) happily commit. We are prideful. We have an excess of food and prosperity. We often ignore the poor and needy. We are haughty. Of course, there is that “abomination,” and maybe that is a reference to homosexuality, but it doesn’t seem to be the thing that God is focusing on. I guess we’re all sodomites now.

Driscoll Responds Again

Well, Driscoll has responded again to McLaren, this time gently:

Brian, as someone who has known you for many years I will, out of sincere and true love for you, ask one simple question and kindly request that you answer it.Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?

I hope this question is simple, clear, and personal enough to result in an answer of either yes or no. Perhaps my attempt at some prophetic sarcasm which is commmon in Scripture was not well received. So, rather than repeating my tone I would like to simply ask your forgiveness if your have been wounded and get to the point of all this controversy. People like me who have known you, followed you, and learned from you for many years would simply like to know the bottom line for you personally with all of the other issues set aside for the time being. If you refuse to answer I am sure you can understand why accusations and concerns will be coming from both the right and the left and your answer will at least enable you to speak for yourself. So, with all respect would you please answer the question my brother?

What are you predictions for McLaren? I'm guessing no straight answer.

Talking about Homosexuality & Infant Baptism

No, those two topics are not related (at least in this post). But, they are the subjects of two conversations that I am following right now on the web. (Side note: I almost just said, “in the blogosphere” instead of “on the web.” I’m not really saying what I mean when I say “on the web,” but I’m sort of uncomfortable with the term blogosphere. I don’t understand where it came from, and it is sort of dorky…I don’t know. Side note over.)

The first converstation, is centralized, although not limited to the Leadership Journal blog: Out of Ur. It is about homosexuality, and I have commented in the previous two posts about this. There have been two responses of note to Driscoll and other commenters on McLaren’s original post.

The first is a response to Mark Driscoll by some blogger I’ve never read before today that I think is very good, and I think, needed: Some thoughts for Mark Driscoll. Take this and Tall Skinny Kiwi’s response together and see what you think. Personally, the reason this debate about homosexuality is so interesting, is because it brings out what people are thinking about McLaren and Driscoll, two poles of the postmodern/emerging/newkindofchruch thing that is going on. I know what I think about the homosexuality issue, so that conversation is less engaging to me than the quasi-political orienting of different progressive church leaders. That being said, I did find McLaren’s response to all of this interesting, and while I continue to disagree with him, I find his style and attitude commendable. I have always said that I would rather be in a fight with Brian McLaren over any other person I have ever met. I could have the most heated disagreements with McLaren and still enjoy talking with him. I think that is a good quality to have.

Another conversation I am following, is one on another side of the world of Christian perspectives. It is a good, old fashioned discussion about infant baptism on the Reformation21 blog. Because there is one Baptist on the blog, and a whole lot of Presbyterians, the debate could have gotten ugly and one sided. Thankfully, this is a good picture of grace between disagreeing Christians, and as a result, the issues are being laid out very clearly for people to think about. I for one, am a credo-baptist (meaning, I would only baptize children who have expressed a genuine personal faith in Christ). However, not unlike McLaren on homosexuality, I am not ready to quickly and flatly dismiss paedobaptists (those who dunk their kids). I see ligitimate arguments on both sides. If you are interested in the discussion, there are currently four posts about it:

• Babies of Baptists
• Beloved Baptist Babies
• The Lone Ranger Rides Again
• Wet vs. Dry Christian Babies

More on Driscoll’s Rant

Driscoll's response to Mclaren has been nagging at me a lot. I keep thinking about how he should or could have responded. I'm still not sure what to think, but a lot of me feels like Driscoll went to far…not in his stance, but in his expression. Sure, to love Driscoll, you have to get used to rough and raw (and potentially offensive) rhetoric. But, this time, in my opinion, his style got in the way of the truth he is defending. Of course, there is still part of me that says, "Why aren't more people reacting this strongly to the crap Emergent drags into it's agenda?" Besides, Let's not pretend we can't sort out the sarcasm and the truth. We're all big boys, and we don't get confused when a non-Christian uses sarcasm to communicate. Why can't we just get over one of our own (a pastor, even) who uses it? Either way, Driscoll is one of us (whether you are Emergent, Reformed, postmodern, or just a Christian). Those who are offended by him should remember that he is on the same team as you if you are seeking Christ's Kingdom.

One great post about Driscoll is by Tall Skinny Kiwi, who writes about Driscoll from the perspective of the Emergent camp, as one who knows him personally. It adds a lot of background and context for how to read Driscoll: Is the Blogosphere Ready for Mark Driscoll?

Driscoll Drops the Gloves

So, what do you do about this post on Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question 3: A Rant by Mark Driscoll?

I'm not quite sure how to react to it. You may feel the same.

First of all, please know that I vehemently disagree with McLaren just like Driscoll does. McLaren needs to call sin what it is, and start being a pastor. By that I mean, stop letting sin destroy people you love because you don't have the guts to tell them that is wrong and will destroy their lives. Just because it hurts people initially to tell them their lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean that you don't. If one of my student's is on drugs, I'd be a lousey youth pastor to do and say nothing. McLaren also simply denies the fact that the church has a clear teaching on homosexuality for centuries. I'm not sure about waiting 5 or 10 years to discuss the issue.

However, I'm torn when it comes to Driscoll's approach. Driscoll, as you probably know, is not afraid to say it like he thinks it. He pulls no punches, says what you are thinking (or what you are afraid might be true), and the Spirit convicts. On the whole, this has been good for him, and those that he ministers to. And yet…Driscoll seems to be attacking pretty harshly in this case. Frankly, it is scathing. Hilarious, but scathing. Could he have approached this better?

I don't know if my hesitancy is because, as a staff member of a large, white, Evangelical church, I'm a pansy. Like most other Evangelical pastors, I hate conflict. This tends to make me hide the truth sometimes when it is hard to say. I know that I need a little more Luther in me sometimes. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if the point would have been made as clearly in a more civil way.

Or maybe the explosive reaction is what we need to wake us up and get us to see that debating whether being homosexual is right or wrong is a sign that the enemy is at work among us…

I feel like Driscoll is turning up the heat a lot lately with his statements about Emergent. He, of course, is an early defector from the movement, and is now returning to throw some punches. He is clearly making an active move to draw the lines between himself and Emergent. He is acting very intentionally, I'm sure, as the last few weeks are really his first foray into the blogosphere (other than his sermons, and those of us who discuss his teaching). I'm curious to see where this goes. I hope he knows what he is doing, because this post makes me think he's going to shut a lot of people down with his rhetoric so that they will miss the truth.

But then again, maybe we need someone with the balls to take on some heresy.