Their penchant for theological reflection, however, is
troubling.
Hillsong’s New York pastor, Carl Lentz, created a stir by
saying on a recent CNN segment,
"Jesus was in the thick of an era where homosexuality,
just like it is today, was widely prevalent. And I'm still waiting for
someone to show me the quote where Jesus addressed it on the record in front of
people. You won't find it because he never did,"
Lentz went on to say, "We have a lot of gay men and
women in our church and I pray we
always do."
Lentz’s wife, Laura, corroborated her husband’s view by
adding, "It's not our place to tell anyone how they should live, it's -
that's their journey."
Christians eager to see a church more welcoming of members
of the LGBTQ community might cheer at such statements. But trust me,
undergirding these ostensibly inclusive statements is a troubling way of
reading Scripture and a dangerous way of engaging in theological
reflection.
To be sure, it is interesting to note that the four Gospel
witnesses do not comment on same sex relations even though they follow the
Pauline epistles in terms of their chronological composition. However, the
argument that, “if Jesus didn’t say it publicly, we don’t talk about it
publicly” makes for a poor way of both interpreting and understanding
Scripture.
Whereas one might easily critique Lentz’s contention that
Jesus “was in the thick of an era where homosexuality, just like it is today,
was widely prevalent,” it seems wiser to bypass this ignorant and problematical
assumption and instead focus on the dangerous implications of operating off of a
“We believe only what Jesus says” mentality.
The obvious problem with Lentz’s statement is that there are
plenty of things Jesus did not publically address that stand as perils to our
modern world. Civil rights, equality between the sexes, bioethics, and nuclear
proliferation just to name a few. Lentz’s statement is not to be confused with one of the central tenets of the Stone-Campell Restoration movement, “Where Scripture speaks we
speak. Where Scripture is silent, we are silent.” Rather, it is a repudiation
of the entirety of the witness of Scripture and introduces an unworkable hermeneutic that borders on Marcionism. Functionally, it creates a canon
within a canon ala Thomas Jefferson
whereby we manage our affairs solely off of the red-letter words.
I applaud Lentz for acknowledging that there are gay men and
women in his church and praying for the continuation of that trend. I cringe at
his wife’s words that said that it is not their place to tell anyone how to
live. Besides the fact that such a statement is far from being a statement of
welcome and instead functions as the most milquetoast type of tolerance, it also
diverges away from God’s grace-filled gospel, and drives right into the realm
of antinomian nonsense tailored for an era of feel-good sound bites. It should be noted again that Lentz's words aired on a CNN segment and I'm sure certain editorial liberties were taken. However, the problematical nature of the statement still stands.
Hillsong’s leader, Brian Houston had to clarify earlier statements he made at a New York Press Conference that led news outlets to
suggest that he had articulated a more welcoming tone towards LGBTQ
individuals. “I challenge people to read what I actually said, rather than what
was reported that I said,” said Houston, “My personal view on
the subject of homosexuality would line up with most traditionally held
Christian views. I believe the writings of Paul are clear
on this subject."
There we go. Clear as day. Well, maybe a cloudy one.
Houston is a smart guy, or at least one who is deeply
concerned with keeping his global church from fracturing and his lucrative
music licensing fees from drying up. His statement does two things of note:
First, it says that his own personal view on the subject of homosexuality would
line up with most traditionally held Christian views (emphasis mine). This
statement is odd because one of the main arguments made by non-affirming
Christians is that their view is the traditionally held Christian
view, not simply the majority view. Second, saying that the writings of Paul
are “clear” on the subject is unhelpful. The writings of
Paul on the topic of women speaking in church also seem to be “clear” and yet
Houston is a part of a denominational that proudly (and rightly) ordains women. This
is a statement not intended for clarity but for diplomacy. In fact, it comes awfully close to skirting along philosopher Harry Frankfurt's definition of "bullshit" whereby the speaker is most concerned with making a favorable impression upon the listeners (both affirming and non-affirming) rather than the truth of what he's saying.
Houston’s original statements during a press conference on
the issue actually come off as quite articulate and thoughtful (if not representative of a quick three point sermon). He eagerly
references the fact that there are human lives at stake in this conversation
and I do not doubt for one second his concern for these individuals. But if there are teenagers' lives at stake and if there are people battling depression over this, then why not make a definitive statement either way so as to at the very least let LGBTQ individuals know what they're getting into when they attend your churches. Houston's subsequent statement and the statement made by Carl Lentz should make those
working for a more inclusive church feel wary about the way in which their
lives, gifts, and graces are being so casually handled.
So yes, Hillsong church, this is an ongoing conversation and
a terribly important one at that. But what this is not is an opportunity to
issue clever sound bites that propagate potentially harmful ways of reading
Scripture or to make statements in which you try to straddle a fence because
you’re afraid of what other people might think of you.
Gospel does have a claim on us. It does tell us how
to live our lives. And this ain’t it.
No comments:
Post a Comment