One of America’s most influential evangelicals, Brian McLaren talks about his shifting views on homosexuality, including presiding at his gay son’s marriage commitment ceremony.
Named one of TIME Magazine‘s “25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America” in 2005, Brian McLaren has been a personal and theological journey that has made him a lightening rod of the evangelical movement, especially regarding politics (he supported Obama) and “social issues” such as LGBT equality.
In 2006, McLaren famously suggested in Christianity Today, the news outlet of the evangelical movement, that, “Perhaps we need a five-year moritorium on making pronouncements [about homosexaulity]. … Being ‘right’ isn’t enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient.” The mere suggestion of a “five-year moritorium” caused an uproar among the right and holy.
Last year, it was announced that McLaren had presided at a commitment ceremony for his son Trevor and Trevor’s partner, Owen Ryan.
Now, in a new interview, McLaren has opened up more about his personal and theological journey on the subject of homosexuality, including his relationship with his son:
About Steve Knight
Note that he is no longer one of America’s most influential Evangelicals. This took place 8 years ago.
Not sure if he’s one of the most influential any longer.
His changing his views is acceptable and applauded yet when Roe changed her views on abortion, she was made chastised. I guess it’s what people want, that makes a difference.
His changing his views is acceptable and applauded by the liberals yet when Roe changed her views on abortion, she was chastised.
Since when is any person or group obligated to approve of all changes of views simply because they are changes of views, regardless of what the actual change was?
He has lost his way. The bible is clear: Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman it is an abomination. This is not to say I do not respect Gay people, but sin is sin and I sin also.
Andrew, I take it you observe all the other prohibitions in Leviticus, without exception? If you do not, I would be interested to learn which ones you have discarded, and on what authority.
There are lots of proclamations but very few have the word abomination ascribed. Also when you continue into the NT sexual sin is a big deal. Scripture commands to abstain from sexual sin. What do you think scripture means by this?
To start with, I believe that we (all humans) live under the care of a loving, protective and forgiving God. Jesus Christ came to earth to purchase our salvation (from a universally fallen state) through His own death, and to put in place a new covenant that replaces and does away with most of the OT.
It follows that I am not too perturbed about Leviticus and its prohibitions, whether or not they are considered abominations. (As a matter of historical fact, Leviticus was inserted into the OT as part of the settlement arrived at after the invasion of the Holy Land by the Persians and similar laws can be found in their scriptures and laws of the period.)
In the period after the time of Jesus Christ, we actually all enjoy a salvation that is difficult to alienate.
As for sexual sin being a big deal in the NT, without Leviticus it becomes very difficult to tie down a definition of sexual sin. I believe that God’s meaning in this regard is to caution us that sex is not just for casual fun. It is part of the expression of a deep and all encompassing love for another, and should be experienced in that context.
In other words, casual sex is out and if you are going to have sex, it should be in the context of a holistic relationship with a partner to whom you are committed. If this excludes people who do not happen to be heterosexual and married, I find it surprising generally, and I find it surprising particularly that Jesus did not find it necessary to say anything about it during his time on earth.
To return to my question, I think there are 496 prohibitions in Leviticus, 6 of which deal with homosexuality. (I speak under correction.) Which are the ones you have disregarded, and why? For example, do you wear garments woven of more than one fabric, or do you eat shellfish?
Yes there are many restrictions that I do not follow. Also the NT ushers in grace for mankind. Yet I’d like to ask you a few questions. Is the sexual attraction of one man for another normal? Is this psychology in line with the holiness of God? What was woman created for if not to love a man (vice versa). The NT warns to abstain from sexual immorality. Fornication is mentioned and in some instances is think it is used to describe male to male relations. I consider fornication anal sex and bestiality all sexual deviant behaviors. To sum up, I think sex was created for a man to share with a woman leading to offspring. Anything else is most likely sin even if is in a committed relationship. I’d like to know what you think.
Concerning OT- law Romans 8: 2: Because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
On homosexuallity in the NT- 1 Corinthians 6:9–10: Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Andrew
WOW, I wrote a whole response and then the page refreshed and it was lost. Here goes again.
I will start by answering your questions.
1. Same sex attraction is natural and is found in many species other than humans. Why would you think it unnatural?
2. The psychology of same-sex attraction is in line with the holiness of God because we are created in His image. To the extent that it may not be in line, that is a human thing, not a same-sex attraction thing.
3. Humans were created to love God. Woman was created as a companion to man. This does not constrain love to be only between one man and one woman. We received a new commandment from Christ himself: “Love one another”. (There are also many women, and men, who would take issue with your assertion expressed in the question “What was woman created for if not to love a man …”)
4. Fornication is sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
5. Fornication is not “anal sex and bestiality and all sexual deviant behaviours”. Anal sex is not an exclusively homosexual practice and is frequently practiced in Christian marriages. Bestiality involves sex with an animal and I am somewhat alarmed that you would confuse sex between two humans of the same gender with sex between one human and one who is not a human and so cannot be thought of as a consenting or willing participant. As to “all sexual deviant behaviours”, that is a very wide scope and I don’t know what precisely you mean by it. At a guess, I’d think it encompasses everything you do not approve of or do yourself.
6. If sex is exclusively for one man and one woman in order to beget children, then it follows that sex should only occur while conception is possible and until the couple has conceived the number of children they want. After that, as you point out, anything else is most likely sin. Given the number of people on the planet already, it may be prudent to have a global time-out from sex altogether to bring the population back to sustainable numbers. Personally, I do not think that sex outside of the bounds you have prescribed is likely to be sin. I think God is far more offended when we hurt one another, or use another person primarily for sexual gratification, without regard to the person they are.
The above is what I really believe and so answers your questions.
Corinthians was written by Paul, himself most likely homosexual. Paul wrote at a time before the third century editing of the Bible had happened and so he was in all probability strongly influenced by Leviticus and its apparent condemnation of his own inclinations and desires. It was in his nature not to let himself off the hook, on any issue. Again, consider that Jesus Himself did not find it necessary to address the issue during His time on earth.
I have a question for you. Are you a homosexual who is restraining himself based on religious belief? If you are, please read what I write with caution. What is correct for me may not be so for you, and I would not want to lead you into sin, or into a state in which you will feel you have sinned.
Religion is a matter of faith. You start out learning through instruction and reading, then move on to prayer and self-reflection. In the end, you have to reconcile the way you know yourself with the way you know God. This is the work of a lifetime and is a dynamic process.
I believed that homosexuality was sin and I tried to change myself. I found I could control everything about myself other than my dreams. What I dreamt of was men. As the Bible teaches us, dreaming or imagining it is as bad as doing it. You also cannot keep committing the same sin and then going and asking forgiveness for it, on a never ending basis. So it seemed I was created in a way that meant I was condemned, no matter what I did.
I went back to what I had learned, and reexamined it. I prayed a lot. I examined the way same-sex attraction influences and permeates every aspect of my life. It determines who I notice and pay attention to in public places, and where my mind drifts when it is idle. Over time, I developed a relationship with God. In that relationship, many issues have been wrestled with, but same-sex attraction has not been an issue. God is Love. He does not and will not condemn you for love.
This is my belief and my faith. I am not promiscuous and I do not have casual sex. To me sex deepens an already deep and exclusive relationship. When I take a lover or am taken, it is in that context, and God has not intervened other than to facilitate. I believe He is far more concerned about (real or perceived) LGBTQIxx kids who seek to end their lives because they are not accepted, along with all the other issues and causes of human suffering in the world.
In closing I would like to ask you, if you do not limit your sexual activities to the minimum necessary to conceive the number of children you want (or already have), what liberties have you allowed yourself that you would deny homosexual people, and on what grounds?