The New York Times reported that Brian McLaren “led a commitment ceremony with traditional Christian elements” following his son Trevor’s own same-sex marriage. The elder McLaren formerly led Cedar Ridge Community Church, authored several well-known books, and shines as the guiding light for Emergent Christians everywhere. Many church members have been surprised by this development, also announced on Christianity Today’s “Gleanings” website. Since around 2006 at least, McLaren has been calling upon Christians to cease condemning homosexuality in favor of dialogue and outreach. Responses to his son Trevor’s sexual orientation and this ceremonial event will no doubt be myriad.
Comment by Eric Lytle on September 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm
What can this attention-seeking clown do for an encore? Maybe he can marry himself to two men and then preach to Christians how they ought to engage in dialogue and outreach to same-sex polygamists.
When you throw aside the Bible and two thousand years of Christianity, pretty much anything becomes acceptable.
Comment by Dan Trabue on September 25, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Crazy guys, actually believing that committing to one another in a faithful, loving, respectful marriage relationship is a GOOD thing! What nutjobs!
Comment by Jeff R on September 26, 2012 at 1:39 am
Sorry Dan – but “a commitment ceremony with traditional christian [change to small “c” intentional] elements” doesn’t necessarily imply that a “faithful, loving, respectful marriage relationship” is what they are committing to. As a pastor, I have been asked to preside over weddings where the self-written vows provided by the couple were pretty much fancy renditions of, “I love you today, and as long as I don’t start to love someone else and think this relationship is worth the trouble, I’ll stay in it.” I refused to do those ceremonies. Also take note of the fact that a significantly large percentage of same-sex unions – especially male-male – incorporate some allowed “freedom to experiment” as part of the “commitment” – VERY different from “Christian marriage” in the capital C sense of the phrase. No details on this ceremony, so we can’t know for certain what was included and what was left out – but “some christian elements” suggests it wasn’t the ceremony out of the Book of Common Prayer – and it would be very interesting to hear what version of “a commitment ceremony” Pastor McLaren felt was acceptable. I hope they decide to share that with us soon…
Comment by John McAdams on September 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm
It’s really impossible to top the very traditional Book of Common Prayer ceremony.
Comment by Chris Tiedeman on September 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Geesh.
Comment by Bob Munsey on September 25, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Same sex marriage does not exist other than in a confused mind.
Comment by Charles meaning on September 25, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Very, very true. Don’t forget that not only in a confused mind, but homosexuality can exist only in a darkened or blinded mind as well. But Jesus calls on us to pray for these enemies of the scriptures and of civilization. A difficult thing to learn, but learn we must. If you have a friend or know someone who is gay, perhaps he or she would be a good starting place to pray that God will clear their mind to where they can begin to believe what Scriptue says about homosexuality and then to begin the difficult process of changing the way they think about it and to start acting on their “new man’s” mind. Eph. 4:22-24
Comment by Jeff R on September 26, 2012 at 1:31 am
Several years ago, as an evangelical pastor who has myself struggled with same-sex attractions for many years, I took issue with Pastor McLaren on his suggestion for a moratorium on pronouncements against homosexual behavior. It is now obvious why he took the position he did. That he would take that position without being honest about this undoubtedly pivotal reason for his adoption of it seems now disingenuous on it’s face. I clearly understand his desire to save his son from any unnecessary pain the church, in its less “christian” (small “c” intended) moments, might have cause his son. But he will now find it VERY difficult to convince many evangelicals – myself included – that his reasons for adopting this view were truly based on an objective evaluation of the Scriptures and not on his personal involvement – and perhaps, personal sense of guilt, as well??? – with the issue. Had he been open with us all earlier on, he might have maintained more credibility than he will now that this has been publicly revealed. He needs our prayers.
Comment by Dan Trabue on September 26, 2012 at 10:22 am
Are you suggesting he should have “outed” his son?
Hopefully not. It’s not really anyone else’s business, is it?
This appears, again, to be an attack on the man rather than on the argument.
There are plenty of us (folk like me) who reached our conclusion that the traditional biases against homosexuality are simply not borne out by reasonable consideration and good biblical exegesis. I was as opposed to anything that would affirm homosexuality as is possible. I was convinced the bible was clearly against homosexuality, that it taught that any and all gay behavior is sinful.
Not having any gay friends or family (that I knew of), not having any cultural reason to change my position, I nonetheless did change my position simply because I no longer believe the traditional opinion is moral, biblical or logical. It happens.
Stick to discussing the ideas, rather than attacks on the person, if you want to have credibility in these discussions. It is attacks like these that further weaken your all’s collective arguments and that help explain why you are losing this argument.
Comment by Jeff R on September 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
Since you were not part of the original discussion, your concept of what I am “attacking” here is based on an assumption, not any facts. I certainly would not have suggested that he “out” his son; that kind of violation would have been unforgivable.
I am not attacking Pastor McLaren here, other than to suggest that he SHOULD have been more honest in his sharing about the issue up to this point, and there are many ways he could have done that without violating his son.
I am also not suggesting that it is impossible to come to the conclusions you did by honest inquiry. I disagree with the direction you have taken, but that is your choice.
What I am suggesting is that Pastor McLaren’s “change” did not follow that pattern, and I say that based on his own words. Here is a quote from an NPR interview, as relayed by The Christian Post:
“I was a good kid, I believed what I’d been told. And as a pastor, I started having gay people come out to me and what became clearer and clearer to me is that their experience was not explained by the theology I inherited,” he explained. “And that it would be unjust to continue to uphold what I’d been taught. Maybe I could say it like this: My call to love God and love my neighbor was in conflict with what I’d been taught the Bible required me to say and do.”
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/brian-mclarens-son-marries-same-sex-partner-82209/#ZcDbPjKUVPWij8FU.99
“Their experience was not explained by the theology I inherited.” So he changed his theology. He brought the bias of his experience into the study, and one can come to any number of conclusions when one takes that approach.
I am sorry that you perceived my post as a personal attack. I strongly disagree with both Pastor McLaren’s process and his conclusions. If that is a personal attack in your eyes, so be it; I can’t change that.
Tell me what “ideas” you think are relevant, and I will gladly respond to those.
Comment by Mark Henderson on November 6, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Jeff R. I take issue with what you write You said, “So he changed his theology. He brought the bias of his experience into the study, and one can come to any number of conclusions when one takes that approach.”
I don’t know what “study” you are referring to however one’s personal views about the Bible does change throughout life and one’s experience changes those views.
You imply but do not say that he changed his “theology” when his son disclosed his homosexuality to him, thus this event changed McLaren’s views on homosexuality. McLaren in the article describes his changing views. “I started having gay people come out to me and what became clearer and clearer to me is that their experience was not explained by the theology I inherited,” he explained. “And that it would be unjust to
continue to uphold what I’d been taught. Maybe I could say it like this: My call to love God and love my neighbor was in conflict with what I’d been taught the Bible required me to say and do.” His views were changing before his son came out.
Finally, I don’t know why his credibility is called into question at all. Did McLaren ever say he was being objective?
Comment by Jeff Rudloff on November 8, 2012 at 9:50 am
The “study” referred to in the post above referenced his reconsideration of the issue of the validity of homosexual behavior in the context of scripture. Apparently, like our President, his views on that issue were “evolving” over time. I assume that meant that as he considered the outside, personal, anecdotal evidence he was receiving, he also considered the Biblical arguments as well. That, to me, made the process a “study”. The word is not significant; substitute whatever one you like to describe the process.
The rest of that specific statement is on a different level: “…one’s personal views about the Bible does change throughout life and one’s experience changes those views.” First of all, that is not necessarily true for everyone. Not everyone’s views about the Bible are in constant flux and change, and I recall a scripture that references those who are tossed about by every wind of doctrine in negative terms. For many us, we consider certain issues to be worthy of that kind of openness, while others are not. And in particular, your assertion that experience is the factor that brings those changes about is more than a little disturbing. The main reason for that is that I hold to the conviction that the Word is unchanging, while opinions about it are. I believe that we should use Scripture to define and evaluate our experiences, not the other way round. If one’s experience defines what we believe about the Word, then experience is our final answer, and all revealed religion becomes moot.
You could not have read my response above and believe that I was implying he changed his beliefs just because of his son’s situation. I even quoted the same exact passage you quoted above to define his process. Obviously his views changed over a longer period of time, and if you were aware of the original interaction that I had with Brian and his views years ago, you would also know that I was clearly aware that the change was happening well before the recent revelations.
That is the reason why I consider his recent moves to be disingenuous. It is not a question of any claims to objectivity – NONE of us are objective, and cannot possibly BE objective. Until this latest revelation, Brian has allowed the rest of us to assume – which many if not most of us did for some time – that he stood with the conservative evangelical mainstream on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. He has been calling for understanding and sensitivity on the question – a position I wholeheartedly support – without revealing the change in his own position. Our first disagreement came up in context of a call for a five-year moratorium on evangelical “pronouncements” (as he called them) against homosexual behavior. He suggested that if we stopped calling it sin and listened to their hearts, we would be able to minister more effectively to the gay community. It now seems likely that what he was really hoping for was that the rest of us would do as you and he have both chosen to do – interpret the Word through the lens of experience instead of vice versa. Even that would not be offensive to me if he had TOLD us that from the beginning. It would have been far more intellectually honest to reveal that his position had changed and defend it than to maintain the appearance of one who was himself within the evangelical mainstream – which he clearly suggested in the article with which I disagreed on the blog site – and was just hoping for some “understanding” on the issue. I could be cynical about his reasons for avoiding that course, but whatever they are, it doesn’t fit my definition of operating with real integrity. I personally would have been less dismayed had he been more open about his process earlier on.
You need to remember one other thing that I disclosed at the beginning of my original post that is part of MY personal non-objectivity. I have struggled with same-sex attraction all my life, so I am not unfamiliar with the pressure to use my experience to define “truth” in my life. I certainly respect the right of those who disagree with my conclusions to have and promote their beliefs. But I do not appreciate those who cannot be honest about those beliefs in the process. That is how I view McLaren’s situation, and for me, it was disconcerting. If it wasn’t for you, by all means, give him whatever latitude and/or support you choose.
Comment by Ben Welliver on September 26, 2012 at 9:02 am
Given his most recent book and its call for a group hug for people of all religions – except evangelicals – I think we can safely say that whatever credibility he might have had is pretty much shot. What he refers to as the “hostility” of evangelicals is what we would call “guarding the deposit of faith.”
Comment by Eric Lytle on September 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I was a little rattled when I saw McLaren’s photo as a “Like” on a friend’s Facebook page – then I realized it was Dave Ramsey. They do look somewhat alike, but Ramsey is a Christian.