Rob Bell Answers the Biblical Gay Question
From Huffington Post
In this video, Rob is peppered with questions/challenges regarding his view of culture shift and homosexuality on the Unbelievable radio show in the U.K. What do you think: Are his answers sufficiently biblical, or do they simply accomodate to the culture? Or is he providing some needed nuance regarding hermeneutics and human experience.
I find this particular situation in general an issue of caring. Caring "too much" can cause narrow and zealous beliefs while caring "too little" describes the majority of the people of the world. Rob Bell seemed a little evasive when asked direct questions; or maybe, just maybe he has not taken a definitive stance on something that in my opinion is not at the top of the list of concern. I would say that he "cares" but is trying not to over or under emphasize the importance of the singular issue on the chopping block and choses to look at the broader picture and all of its moving parts. His stance is quite courageous because he doesn't have nice black and white Scripture to point at and hit people in the head with. He has to stand humbly while rocks get thrown at him, some small and some large. I relate to how he feels with the exception that I'm not under the spotlight and my "faithfulness" isn't being called into question for the whole world to scrutinze. Funny how when you chose to be loving instead of condemning or chose not to be so bold as to unequivocally interpret Scripture that you immediately are corrected or confronted as not being "faithful" or allowing God's Word to be diminished. It seems to me that amongst Christians who love Jesus, that is the most hurtful and damning thing you can say. Could that subconsciously be a passive-aggresive tactic Christians can use amongst each other to wound? As for the topic as hand, once again the focus is on who can't be included. So many are concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage rather than the addressing bigger problem of why marriage is taken so lightly in this day and age and why divorce is now normal. I’ve lost count how many times I’ve heard people say they got their “practice marriage” out of the way so hopefully the current marriage is for good. We are not outraged and dividing because the divorce rate is so high and so accepted. We are not condeming people and telling them that their reasons for divorce are unacceptable and that re-marrying would constitute adultery while quoting Scripture to them. We are quick to point at scripture condemning homosexuality but make concessions and modern interpretation of reasons for divorce. Or maybe we are just not dealing with the issue because it is so prevalent. I'm only using divorce here as a comparison to show how conservative viewpoints can be very selective in their pinpointing of "problems". There are many systemic problems that run very deep and connect to many other issues. Maybe before we decide we need to focus on division and keeping people out of clergy, marriage, and church we can work on how to retain and invite the lost into the fold.
ReplyDeleteI’m no theologian, so forgive me if I’m generalizing Jesus’ interactions with people as He walked this earth but I can’t help but to think that his main concern were the religious elite who took it upon themselves to mismanage his teachings and hurt people. All the images I have in my head of Jesus amongst us were Him approaching the underbelly of society. By approach I mean befriend, eat with, embrace, lay hands on, heal and speak to lovingly. I don’t recall instances of telling tax collectors they needed to stop thieving or prostitutes that they needed to stop selling, they already knew that. His love and acceptance of them (the person, not their actions) moved their hearts so that they chose on their own to change their ways. He didn’t’ condone anything sinful but He also didn’t condemn the people. He gave them a chance to chose Him and they did. Somehow He saw fit to heal or eat with the untouchable, even if that meant “violating the sanctity” of precious orthodoxy or “breaking the Sabbath”. He obviously didn’t violate anything because He is sinless, so what He broke was our feeble understanding of what we think God intends. I say “we” a lot. The reason for that is because “we” are the Pharisees of the Bible that Jesus made large mention of. We try not to be but it can happen in a second and it does. Every one of us. Spoken or unspoken; thoughts, words, and deeds. One of the first prayers I heard from a dear mentor of mine, Fr. Charlie, at St. Georges, was “Lord please help me see, the Pharisee in me.” Very important and powerful prayer. I invite everyone to learn it and use it often.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been questioned mildly by loving Christians in the same way as Rob Bell has been. It makes me sad but it doesn’t get to me too badly. Maybe because I have a slightly high tolerance, or maybe because I haven’t been all out attacked yet. I can’t imagine how someone with a lower tolerance must feel or someone who’s been hurt very badly by a self-righteous Christian. I can see why people who “aren’t religious” make it a point not to affiliate with those who chose to condemn in the name of God. I’ve always felt that the most vile form of blasphemy is to commit murder “in God’s name”. I understand murder to be one and the same as being angry or insulting your fellow man (Matt 5:22). So using God’s good name to condemn someone sounds very blasphemous to me. I would think long and hard before thinking it was my duty to exhort someone in that way. It’s the quickest most surefire way to turn someone off from what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteSo bottom line, I believe Scripture is the living and breathing Word of God, every word. What I don’t believe is that I understand God’s ways, Scripture says that we can’t. That doesn’t mean that we don’t get glimmers of understanding. We just never receive the full picture. I don’t believe that I can make determinant statements and issue a one size fits all decree on how God wants things done. I know there are times to correct but I find that people already know when they are wrong and are less likely to change if they are told what they already know and are ashamed of. They seem more likely to change when you love them despite themselves and accept them where they are. That doesn’t mean that I should change what I believe or that I should allow them to disrespect my beliefs. It means that I can still maintain fellowship with someone despite their shortcomings as long as they aren’t actively harming or attacking me. It also gives me an opportunity to understand where they are coming from and maybe broaden my narrow worldview. The broader your understanding the more likely you will effectively evangelize your surroundings.
Boy, oh boy, what a debate. We have to be careful that we let God decide how we as Christians relate to him and those around us (society) and not let society dictate how we relate to God. In other words, the Bible is the filter for determining righteousness and correct living, not the society we live in. Too often we let ourselves get emotionally caught up in an issue and disregard what the Bible has to say about it. Emotions can be deceptive and pull us in all sorts of directions, some of which can lead us down destructive paths.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that amazed me in this interview was how Rob Bell always moved the discussion away from the Bible and kept the argument in the realm of emotion. While Andrew Wilson just wanted to know how we got to this position and whether or not the scriptures addressing homosexuality are relevant – does God now say it is okay and wonderful? To me, the question posed in this interview is: does God still decide on the standards of behavior and morality, or do we let society ("the witness of community") set the standards?
The following comment was inadvertantly removed by me. Here is is, restored.
ReplyDeleteCharlie has left a new comment on your post "Rob Bell Responding to the Biblical Gay Question V...":
Boy, oh boy, what a debate. We have to be careful that we let God decide how we as Christians relate to him and those around us (society) and not let society dictate how we relate to God. In other words, the Bible is the filter for determining righteousness and correct living, not the society we live in. Too often we let ourselves get emotionally caught up in an issue and disregard what the Bible has to say about it. Emotions can be deceptive and pull us in all sorts of directions, some of which can lead us down destructive paths.
One thing that amazed me in this interview was how Rob Bell always moved the discussion away from the Bible and kept the argument in the realm of emotion. While Andrew Wilson just wanted to know how we got to this position and whether or not the scriptures addressing homosexuality are relevant – does God now say it is okay and wonderful? To me, the question posed in this interview is: does God still decide on the standards of behavior and morality, or do we let society ("the witness of community") set the standards?
Posted by Charlie to ACTS TWO SIX at June 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM
To play devil's advocate, and some might say "ya think?" when they see this: What would you say if I pointed out that throughout history, it has been the state, or king of the realm, and/or the cultural milieu that has called the shots on acceptable norms of human sexuality? From polygamy with the patriarchs and early jewish practice and law, and royal fiat, etc., to many expressions of sexuality in the Greek and Roman culture and rule, to monogamous practice in European culture and rule, to modern day polygamy in some African nations, a practice to which some clergy in Africa still subscribe. It has always been religion that blesses practices that the state deems lawful. For instance, as a clergyman, I am granted the privelege to perform a marriage on behalf of the state. The state determines a marriage to be legal or not, not the church. This is a big misunderstanding among many who think, bcause this nation has been informed by religion, that religion calls the shots. That's why no one needs me in order to get married. I just perform a state function and ADD the blessing of the church, if a couple so desires it. I can perform a marriage ceremony, but if I don't send in the marriage certificate to the probte court, there is no marriage. So......if the state were to sanction same sex unions, even "marriages", if you will, the union woud be a legal union because the STATE says it is, no matter what the church says. So the church must look within herself and realize that she doth not a marriage make, but only bless. Will she continue to bless what the state calls good? Or will she now draw a line she never drew before, and presume to tell the state its business? Or, at least, refuse to cooperate with the state, forfeiting her right to be involved in a significant segment of the population? For instance, the Anglican and the Roman Catholic church pleaded with Great Britain not to change the definition of marriage. Both entities now concede that this battle is lost. Once Egland starts to have legal, state-sanctioned same sex "marriages", how does the church respond to this pastoral request? It can 1) decide that these people should have the grace and blessing of the church or 2) withhold the church's grace and blessing from these people who are now deemed by the state as legally married, good and proper. Consider the converse. Say Peter and Paul had an epiphany about gay people just like they did about Gentiles and kosher food, meat sacrificed to idols and all that mind-bending and new revelation. And they say, "Hey, gay is as good as straight, and they should be allowed to have committed relationships that God blesses. But if the state were to say, "Sorry. It's not legal." If the church were to go ahead and bless them anyway, do you think the state would recognize them? No, they would not, until the state changed its policy through votes and legislation. So the church has never called the shots here. It can bless, or not bless. But it be would be better for her administer grace and blessing wherever the state allows her to. Just something to think about. This historical reality is lost on many people, and so their beginning perceptions are clouded. So...? When you ask the question as to whether or not the culture should dictate to the church what is deemed right, or is the bible to be her only source of authority, you've opened a bigger can of worms than you think. And Rob'd point begins to make more sense. Maybe?
DeleteI'd love to see you debate someone on TV. They'd certainly get a run for their money! The preacher at the church I go to says very often and adamantly that God doesn't partner with compromise. While I agree, I wonder what God's definition of compromise is. I think we are quick to draw laws in the sand based on our limited understanding and dependence on logic as well as the limits of our ability to embrace. Our ability to acknowledge our limits is in effect what limits us. And now my head hurts. lol
ReplyDelete