I wonder if Gagnon has understood this right. Specifically, embedded in his response is a claim that I have not been able to confirm from its source:
the City Church letter appeals to Jesus’ mission to outcasts as a basis for jettisoning a male-female requirement for marriage
(source: Why San Francisco’s City Church is Wrong About Sex | Robert A. J. Gagnon | First Things)
I say this because I am aware that Gagnon is trying to defend something true, though I cannot always follow him at every stage of his reasoning and rhetoric:
As a church inspired by Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and founded in the Reformed tradition, City Church is supposed to give preeminence to Scripture. Instead, on the matter of homosexual practice, the Pastor and Elder Board gave preeminence to their judgment regarding what conduces more to human flourishing and, oddly, to a scripturally misguided book written by former Vineyard pastor Ken Wilson called A Letter to My Congregation. The letter recommends it to church members for showing, “great empathy and maturity to model unity and patience with those who are in different places on this conversation, all the while dealing honestly with Scripture.”
Wilson contends wrongly that the biblical indictment of homosexual practice is limited to exploitative relationships with adolescents, slaves, and temple prostitutes, as though these were the only forms of homosexual practice known to persons of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world.
(source: Why San Francisco’s City Church is Wrong About Sex | Robert A. J. Gagnon | First Things)
Again, if what these authors believe the letter advances is really what it’s getting at, then it is really understandable that they’re responding with such heavy rebuttals:
I don’t see this letter seeking a dialogue either. Human flourishing and personal suffering are not hermeneutical principles. Personal happiness is not a guide to biblical interpretation. The problem with trying to build a biblical, historical, and theological argument is how formidable a task it is. And it’s even more formidable with this issue because it won’t work. The error this letter advances is so profound and universal it amounts to a complete abandonment of all Scripture, 4,000 years of the Judeo-Christian heritage, and 2,000 years of church history – in which, and this is vital – there is not a single voice of dissent over this issue and practice. It is, quite literally, so completely outside the mind, worldview, and spirit of our history, creeds, and bible that it’s a bit astounding.
(source: A Response to the Statement from City Church San Francisco on Its Ministry to the LGBT People)
And I agree that what they take to be the question is not a subtle matter, certainly not an example of adiaphora, and not to be judged by radically individualist reductions of “human flourishing” or exegetical gymnastics whose foundations are obvious examples of special pleading and petitio principii.
But I am not certain that, based on the language in this confused product of a disordered thought process, what Gagnon and Robin think has happened has, in fact, happened. Here is what seems to be the “bottom line” statement:
We will no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation and demand lifelong celibacy as a precondition for joining. For all members, regardless of sexual orientation, we will continue to expect chastity in singleness until marriage.
(source: A letter from the Elder Board | City Church San Francisco)
Left hanging, of course, is what “marriage” means. Continue reading »