This is a response on a response that was to a response because of a response from Andy S. So this is probably useless because of how far removed I am from the original.
The article was well done and, for the most part, respected Andy: many good points and valid concerns. However, we have the slightest tendency to give ourselves too much credit for our ability to know other’s motives like we understand our own, even with considerable information.
“In our own cases we accept excuses too easily, in other peoples, we do not accept them easily enough.” – C.S. Lewis.
When understood in the full context, the falling out of Andy and his Father can be a great picture of reconciliation.
My main thoughts:
We must concede to one of two premises to fill the great commission. First, Christ did give a perfect ministry method, and because he is perfect, the method is perfect. All we need to do is to attempt to follow it. Second, Christ gave us no such perfect method, so many ministry methods may be “acceptable,” but none perfect. We are in error if we think contrary to either premise. First, any method outside Christ’s perfect method is in error. Second, any method that claims perfection was created by an imperfect man.
No “Philosophy of Ministry” exists without appeals and pitfalls. This is the reason that there are all different types of bodies. Christ never modeled the perfect “church” meeting or plainly stated the only acceptable ministry method. Christ was the only perfect person, therefore, the only one who could have given the perfect ministry method. As far as I can see, he only gave us the goal and some examples. (John 21:25) I may be wrong in saying this, but I believe the examples Jesus gave were the starting point, not a limit on how we fulfill the great commission. Maybe I need to study this more.
I fully understand Pastor Bueamont’s concerns, and I agree. If I were to play the other side of the argument, I would present that most of our criticism comes from our public perception of the mission and the church. We are not privy to the elder meetings, private conversations, small group discussions, and many other aspects of a church’s life. Understanding a man’s parenting effectiveness is nearly impossible by observing only Sunday morning service. We have severely limited sight. If the process stops with only making Jesus accessible, I would have a major issue. However, if that is only the start, I would not be too quick to judge.
It is much like the Samaritan woman. What would Jesus have said to the disciples if they had set up criteria for her to talk with Jesus? He probably would have rebuked them. Even in Matthew 19:14, we see the same attitude. I wonder if this could be more a matter of attitude, not doctrine. Obedience is not always done with the same attitude. If the meeting at the well was the end, I could see that we have grounds to accept the sinner’s behavior in our bodies. However, it is not where Jesus left it.
Verse 16-19 – Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.”
Jesus first allows the woman to come to him and then calls out the sin. Andy seems to be trying to clear the path so the “Gentiles” could come to Jesus because you must meet Jesus first. I hope Andy does not stop there. I believe some steps follow. We must be careful to assign time constraints to the method. I would venture to say there is much more to the ministry than just the first part of his philosophy. Our view is limited. It is similar to the apostles in verse 27.
v 27 And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, “What do You seek?” or, “Why are You talking with her?”
We have been watching the situation from afar and have only what it looks like to make sense of it. Rightfully, we are scared, threatened, and confused because it looks bad. Andy is not Jesus, but the principle remains the same: we are terrible judges, and it only worsens the farther away we get. There was a reason the apostles kept the questions to themselves. They knew that Jesus had reasons unexplainable and not observable with the naked eye.
Ultimately, when we look at same-sex issues, we do not look at them how we look at every other sin. Because of the nature of this particular sin, we allow, sometimes unconsciously, less grace. This sin is the hardest to keep hidden. It is the hardest to confess because of its public nature. I believe it has a greater opportunity for temptation and the potential for a thicker cloud of shame—the shame attacks two fronts. We internally accept the heterosexual desire because it is natural and not acted out. However, the homosexual desire is not accepted because it’s unnatural, even if it remains only a desire.
We need lines when it comes to sin. Who gets to draw them? Which sins get different lines, or do they all get the same? What is the difference between the man who struggles with sexual thoughts about a woman, not his wife, and the man who struggles with the sexual thoughts of another man? What is the difference when those thoughts are acted out? Can we honestly say we address them the same way? Can we honestly say that we address them at all?
It does not seem to be a matter of circles or lines. What if it should be circles and lines? I believe the Bible says married same-sex relationships are a sin. Struggling with same-sex desires is not. I think that is where scripture draws the line, but what that line looks like in practice is not explicitly explained. Should I hinder the woman at the well? Should I keep silent about her sin? Do I know how to do that effectively without making it seem like I am changing scriptures? I think I need to answer no to all of those questions.
If Andy allows continuous same-sex practice in his body of believers in fellowship, there is a serious error. But if there is a process of repentance after they have met Jesus, I am more understanding. How long do we give the drunk to repent? Can anyone one man repent all his behavior in a single stroke? Or do we take it one step at a time?
I see Andy risking a shot at addressing this issue when few others have the courage. So I must ask myself, do I know Andy well enough to know whether this is a genuine attempt to meet the woman at the well or him attempting to alter or change the sex ethic of scripture? Unfortunately, for me, the answer is, I don’t think I know him well enough.
Would God be pleased with Andy and the North Point members if this was a genuine attempt? I honestly don’t know. For my sake, I sure hope so because the Lord knows, I have risked some genuine shots too.
Nos & Rehtaf, Dnabsuh 