:: in.a.mirror.dimly ::

The coming out of Jennifer Knapp has sparked a tipping point for Christians and homosexuality—at least from my perspective. So many of us loved her previous work, and now most Christians feel like they sort of know someone who is a homosexual AND a Christian.

Instead of homosexuals being “out there,” we’ve found they’re also among us.

When same sex marriage passed in Vermont a group of advocates chanted outside the tiny capital building in Montpelier: “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re married, get used to it!”

OK, so it was probably more of a taunt to their opponents, but I got a kick out of it. Blunt though it may be, it laid the cards on the table. With a law legitimizing same sex unions, those in opposition were faced with a choice of how to respond. Will they continue to fight it, or will they figure out a way to disagree and still move on with their lives?

The homosexuality debate among Christians is in a deadlock. I don’t think there’s anything new we can say. If you read enough comments and blog posts, you’ll find roughly three views. Christians who find homosexuality morally permissible, those who aren’t sure, and those who don’t.

The comment threads go on and on, but I don’t see an end to the debate in sight. I’ve written extensively on this topic both in the Coffeehouse Theology Contemporary Issues Guide and on this blog. As an exercise, I wrote up one post explaining the reasoning behind all three views on this topic. I feel like I understand where they’re all coming from, even if I have my own opinion on the matter.

I think we need to reframe this discussion. All three sides are just getting frustrated. It’s time to accept the fact that there will always be Christians who permit homosexuality, there will always be Chrisitians who aren’t sure, and there will always be Christians who do not permit it.

We’re here, we’re queer/unsure/straight, we’re Christians, get used to it.

That isn’t to say that we need to agree. No, that isn’t going to happen. We just need to ask the “Now what"?” question. If we can’t resolve this debate, are there some levels where we can at least have civil dialogue while holding to our different convictions?

And if some folks can’t imagine fraternizing with the other side in a dialogue that seeks to understand where that perspective is coming from, then perhaps the best move is disengagement. I’m all for dialoguing with perspectives different from my own—I benefit greatly from it. However, any debate on this topic has been played out, so why even bother to keep lobbing broad sides at one another?

There are consequences to pressing on with the debate. If we continue in this debate, I fear opponents of homosexuality will feel smug and self-righteous for their biblical purity, while those who support it will feel smug and self-righteous for their biblical progressiveness.

This is new, uncertain ground for many of us. So I advise caution as we move forward. However, it’s time to start asking the “now what?” question because the old debates aren’t moving us forward. Too much harm has been done in the name of “what’s right,” and people called to love God and to love others above all else cannot afford to let things continue in their present state.

Christians, especially evangelicals, should be concerned about Sarah Palin’s book that releases on November 17th. It’s not quite on par with the coming of the apocalypse or government-sponsored death panels, but I think we have real problem on our hands.

It doesn’t have to do with Sarah Palin the author.

I don’t begrudge Sarah Palin writing a best-selling book. Good for her. I hope it pays the college bills for her kids and helps her grandkid. I know I was really excited about the release of my book, and I’m sure Sarah Palin is too.

It doesn’t have to do with Sarah Palin the politician.

Folks who drink up politics will certainly find it an interesting read, and I have no issue with the book as a political work. Does Palin want to lambaste the McCain campaign staff? Go for it. Does she want to raise her profile before running for President in 2012? Huckabee may not be happy about that, but don’t worry about me.

Go for it Sarah. I have no qualms with that. It’s a free country made up of mavericky, real Americans who will love her book. Some don’t think she should run for public office, but I’m not going to debate that because I know as little about politics as she knows about the Sunnis and Shiites.

We should be concerned because Sarah Palin knows her only shot in an election is mobilizing the conservative evangelical base. If we think Christianity has been overly-politicized now, we should shudder at the thought of what Palin can do.

In addition, as Palin stakes her claim as a “Christian” politician, Christianity and evangelicals in particular will continue to be painted as right-wing political affinity groups. Lost in the mix is the Gospel, Jesus, and the Great Commission. Will those on the left, who need to hear the Gospel, believe that Jesus comes with a Palin 2012 bumper sticker?

Read Palin’s book. Campaign for her. Vote for her. That’s fine with me.

But we should be concerned that the effectiveness of the Gospel message will be blunted because it is being associated with the Republican party, and Palin may need to do that all the more to solidify her place. Christians may play right into this by holding her up as a model Christian, a standard bearer for evangelicals.

Let’s remember that some could hold up President Obama up as an ideal Christian as well. For those on the right, such a notion should help communicate the polarizing effect of upholding Palin as an evangelical leader.

A Suggested Way Forward

Whatever we think of Palin, Obama, and their Christian beliefs, let’s resolve to carefully select spokesmen and spokeswomen who aren’t politically polarizing and who are best known for their faithfulness to Jesus, the Messiah and Prince of Peace. We could pick those who have passed from this world or we could pick those still among us.

We could talk about Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Wendell Berry, C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, or any other model Christian who has a solid record of preaching the Gospel, serving others, and gracefully representing the cause of Christ. Christians cannot afford to let a politician represent us because politicians have to take sides. For those called to reach the whole world with the Gospel, that is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

While the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America was debating the ordination of homosexual clergy last week in Minneapolis, a tornado touched down right where the meetings were taking place. Pastor John Piper said, “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.”

The response from many Evangelicals and many other Christian groups has been a swift rebuttal of Piper’s remarks, though I’m sure plenty of folks agree with this beloved pastor. Jennell Williams Paris took a humorous approach, while writer Greg Boyd adopted a point-by-point approach in dismantling Piper’s logic and theology.

I think that Boyd hit the nail on the head in picking apart Piper’s points. There are lots of other sins lurking about in America that receive way more attention in scripture and that God could be very concerned about based on biblical precedent. Why would he pick on this one particular issue? In addition, we should be very careful when we claim to know the will of God, particularly when it comes to judgment.

I think enough rebuttals have been written that I won’t need to weigh in here on the particulars. Suffice to say, there are many, many Christians who take the Bible very seriously and disagree with John Piper on this one.

As someone who has benefited from some, but not all, that Piper has written, I’ve been wondering how I would like to be treated if I made the same mistake. I like John, even if I disagree with some points of his theology, and so I don’t want to throw him under the bus here.

What we have here is a good pastor slipping into some bad theology. And if I slipped into some bad theology, how would I like others to reply?

Well, I suppose I would most appreciate personal notes and e-mails that avoided personal attacks, but directly addressed where I was in error. The nature of Piper’s remark in the public forum of the internet means that most replies will be in the form of public statements opposing his initial public remark. While I think it’s important to set the record straight for the media that may have a field day on this one, I think Christian leaders who disagree with Piper and have access to him should write to him personally.

If I slipped into bad theology I would hope that my friends and acquaintances first step would be to write me personally, asking me to change my statement. Depending on the forum of my statement, a more public reply may be necessary. However, I would hope that Christian brothers and sisters would opt for the more personal and direct route of correction if I made a similar mistake as Piper.

Perhaps such an approach will have no effect on Piper on this issue, but if I was in his shoes, I would deeply appreciate personal notes so that I would have a chance to retract my statement/blog post. Public replies are necessary, but I hope that even in this case of bad theology that we’ll focus on restoration beyond the rebuttals.

Here are some thoughts I’m currently processing. I’ll paste below my rough draft:

We don’t have any measure for the effects of poor evangelism, to say nothing of Christianity’s terrible reputation as a religion for the judgmental, hypocritical, and homophobic. These matters need to be viewed through the lens of evangelism, much like our actual efforts to share the Good News. Evangelism isn’t concerned only with what we say, but also with what we do because what we do can easily undermine whatever we say.

That really should be a no-brainer.

Evangelicals are so entrenched in our Gnostic bubble that keeps salvation by faith separated from the Lordship of Jesus and the resulting good works that must flow from truly saving faith (see the epistle of James) that such critiques don’t appear on our radar. If what we’re saying is true, then we assume we’ve done our part: communicated the truth.

We now know that is not enough. The majority of the younger generation and countless others think evangelicals are the problem in the world, not the solution. Can we expect to argue and reason our way out of this mess?