Thanks for your very helpful comments. I Love the idea of “welcoming and transforming,” as opposed to the other two alternatives. It captures so much, so succintly.

Gordon

Anyway, if I stole your thunder, sorry. But you’re still en-lightning! It’s just that I’ve been thinking about all this stuff lately as I prep some posts related to “differential diagnosis” of emerging-Emergent-missional and “What if Gregory House Visited God’s House?”

Okay, then. Onward and upward …

* Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, yet without sin.

* The spiritual/immaterial is permanently wed to the physical/material.

* The incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ covers the core issues on each of the three main categories of cultural context:

+ redemption of sin and removal of condemnation for those in guilt-based cultures.

+ restoration of face and face-to-face relationship for those in shame-based cultures.

+ defeat of evil and implantation of love that overcomes fear for those in power-based cultures.

This both/and essence of incarnation is why, I believe, forms of Reformed and Emergent theology don’t jive with the mission-shaped approach you’re outlining. The epistemology on which their theology is based on strongly either/or thinking. So, it seems to me that it’s natural, given their paradigm, to be upset with the paradoxical third way that you’re suggesting. It’s too inclusivist for some, too exclusivist for others, and it’s got its own difficulties for those who try to practice a not-so-quickly-conclusivist approach.

But, we shouldn’t negate one truth in order to promulgate another, even if it’s really hard to maintain the tension — and I don’t exactly find it easy myself. So, I think your insight about needing to move from concept to concrete is important, along with the suggestion between the lines that covenant relationship counterbalances abstract correctness. That’s why I find the “welcoming and transforming” approach trumps the “rejecting and condemning” and “welcoming and affirming” approaches, when it comes to conversations on LGBT concerns.

Anyway, looking forward to your post on the third way …

Something I have learned when teaching others is that regardless of agreement with their positions we need to respect their experiences if life change and learning are to happen. The church has not been good at simply respecting the life experiences of others. I think this is because by and large the church does not accept experience as a valid source of spiritual truth.

Also, I think there are two definitions of powerlessness at work here that shape our interaction with scripture on these issues.

There is the anabaptist rooted position you state. But there is the reformed take on powerlessness which is total depravity. From a total depravity standpoint we can’t accept women and ministry or LGBT in any form because we are powerless to interact with scripture in any elastic kind of way. In this mode we are powerless because we are simply to proclaim the existent and accepted truth of scripture and shun any other influences. As much as we might like to have even have a posture of inclusiveness we can’t because we are bound by our depraved state and are utterly unable to speak to our own experience (works righteousness) or to their experience.

In one scenario powerlessness becomes a means of freedom. In the other scenario it is a binding and restricting powerlessness.